Urban parkland is a quintessential form of public space. Various actors—from government managers, to civic groups, to individual visitors—actively negotiate and co-create the governance, use, and meaning of parks. One form of negotiation occurs through signage and writing. Here, we focus on 42 parks in New York City and the multiple narratives within them. Through coding the messages, material qualities, and meanings in 784 signs, qualitative analysis of graffiti in parks, triangulated with ethnographic field notes, we identify and discuss what sort of urban park subjectivities are being constructed. These include not only an “ideal park subject,” but also alternative subjectivities such as the neighbor or steward, the graffiti writer, and “free agents” who use wilderness as refuge. We seek to inform new ways of thinking about parks as social–ecological resources that are co-created by users and managers as places that allow multiple subjectivities to be expressed.
AgrawalA. (2005a). Environmentality: Community, intimate government, and the making of environmental subjects in Kumaon, India. Current Anthropology, 46, 161-190.
2.
AgrawalA. (2005b). Environmentality: Technologies of government and the making of subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
3.
AuyeungD. S.CampbellL. K.JohnsonM. S.SontiN. F.SvendsenE. (2016). Reading the landscape: Citywide social assessment of New York City parks and natural areas in 2013-2014 (Social Assessment White Paper No. 2). New York: New York Department of Parks and Recreation.
4.
BlackmarE. (2006). Appropriating “The Commons”: The tragedy of property rights discourse. In LowS.SmithN. (Eds.), The politics of public space (pp. 49-80). New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BlochS. (2016a). Why do graffiti writers write on murals? The birth, life, and slow death of freeway murals in Los Angeles. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40, 451-471.
6.
BlochS. (2016b). Place-based elicitation: Interviewing graffiti writers at the scene of the crime. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 47, 1-28.
7.
BlommaertJ. (2013). Ethnography, superdiversity and linguistic landscapes: Chronicles of complexity. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
BrandP. (2007). Green subjection: The politics of neoliberal urban environmental management. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31, 616-632.
10.
BrockingtonD. (2002). Fortress conservation: The preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oxford, England: James Currey.
11.
ByrneJ. (2012). When green is White: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum, 43, 595-611.
12.
CampbellL. K.SvendsenE. S.SontiN. F.JohnsonM. L. (2016). A social assessment of urban parkland: Analyzing park use and meaning to inform adaptive management and resilience planning. Environmental Science & Policy, 62, 34-44.
13.
CampoD. (2013). The accidental playground: Brooklyn Waterfront Narratives of the undesigned and unplanned. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
14.
CookV. (2015). Meaning and material in the language of the street. Social Semiotics, 25, 81-109.
15.
CookV. (2013). The language of the street. Applied Linguistics Review, 4, 43-81.
16.
CranzG. (1982). The politics of park design: A history of urban parks in America. Cambridge: MIT Press.
17.
CresswellT. (1996). In place-out of place: Geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
CresswellT. (1992). The crucial “where” of graffiti: A geographical analysis of reactions to graffiti in New York. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 10, 329-344.
19.
DowlingT. (2010). “Akuchanywa apha please” No peeing here please: The language of signage in Cape Town. South African Journal of African Languages, 30, 192-208.
20.
FerrellJ. (1993). Crimes of style: Urban graffiti and the politics of criminality. New York, NY: Garland.
21.
FerrellJ.WeideR. (2010). Spot theory. City, 14, 48-62.
22.
FoucaultM. (1991). Governmentality. In BurchellG.GordonC.MillerP. (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
23.
FoucaultM. (1979). On governmentality, ideology and consciousness, 6, pp. 5-2.
24.
FoucaultM. (1971). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
25.
GabrielN. (2011). The work that parks do: Towards an urban environmentality. Social & Cultural Geography, 12, 123-141.
26.
GandyM. (2012). Queer ecology: Nature, sexuality, and heterotopic alliances. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30, 727-747.
27.
GoheenP. G. (1998). Public space and the geography of the modern city. Progress in Human Geography, 22, 479-496.
28.
GordonC. (1991). Governmental rationality. In BurchellG.GordonC.MillerP. (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 1-51). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
GorterD. (2013). Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 190-212.
30.
HarveyD. (2006). The political economy of public space. In LowS.SmithN. (Eds.), The politics of public space (pp. 17-33). New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
HermerJ. (2002). Regulating Eden: The nature of order in North American parks. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
32.
HermerJ.HuntA. (1996). Official graffiti of the everyday. Law & Society Review, 30, 455-480.
33.
JaworskiA.ThurlowC. (2010). Introducing semiotic landscapes. In JaworskiA.ThurlowC. (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 1-40). London, England: Continuum.
34.
KearnsR. A. (2005). Knowing seeing? Undertaking observational research, In HayI. (Ed.), Qualitative methods in human geography (2nd ed., pp. 192-206). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
35.
KosekJ. (2006). Understories: The political life of forests in northern New Mexico. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
36.
LandryR.BourhisR. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 23-49.
37.
LoflandJ.SnowD. A.AndersonL.LoflandL. H. (2005). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
38.
LouJ. J. (2016). The linguistic landscape of Chinatown: A sociolinguistic ethnography. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
39.
McMillenH.CampbellL. K.SvendsenE. S.ReynoldsR. (2016). Recognizing stewardship practices as indicators of social resilience: In living memorials and in a community garden. Sustainability, 8, 775.
40.
MitchellD. (1995). The end of public space? People’s park, definitions of the public, and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85, 108-133.
41.
NeumanW. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative practices. Rural Sociologist, 3, 83-91.
PatrickD. J. (2013). The matter of displacement: A queer urban ecology of New York City’s High Line. Social & Cultural Geography, 15, 1-22.
44.
PelusoN. (1992). Rich forests, poor people: Resource control and resistance in Java. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45.
PennycookA. (2010). Spatial narrations: Graffscapes and city souls. In JaworskiA.ThrulowC. (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: Language, image, space (pp. 137-150). London, England: Continuum International.
46.
Rose-RedwoodR.AldermanD.AzaryahuM. (2010). Geographies of toponymic inscription: New directions in critical place-name studies. Progress in Human Geography, 34, 453-470.
47.
RosenzweigR.BlackmarE. (1992). The park and the people: A history of Central Park. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
48.
ScollonR.ScollonS. W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London, England: Routledge
49.
ShepardC. (2017). Citymakers: The culture and craft of practical urbanism. New York, NY: Monacelli Press.
50.
SmithN.LowS. (2006). Introduction: The imperative of public space. In LowS.SmithN. (Eds.), The politics of public space (pp. 1-16). New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
SvendsenE.CampbellL. (2008). Understanding urban environmental stewardship. Cities and the Environment, 1, 1-32.
52.
SvendsenE. S.CampbellL. K.McMillenH. L. (2016). Stories, shrines, and symbols: Recognizing psycho-social-spiritual benefits of urban parks and natural areas. Journal of Ethnobiology, 36, 881-907.
53.
TaylorD. E. (2009). The environment and the people in American cities, 1600s-1990s: Disorder, inequality, and social change. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
ValverdeM. (2005). Taking “land use” seriously: Toward an ontology of municipal law. Law Text Culture, 9, 34-59.
56.
van LoonJ. (2014). “Just writing your name?” An analysis of the spatial behaviour of graffiti writers in Amsterdam. Belgeo, 3. Retrieved from https://journals.openedition.org/belgeo/13062
57.
WaldnerL. K.DobratzB. A. (2013). Graffiti as a form of contentious political participation. Sociology Compass, 7, 377-389.
58.
ZabrodskajaA.MilaniT. M. (2014). Signs in context: Multilingual and multimodal texts in semiotic space. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 228, 1-6.
59.
ZukinS. (1995). The culture of cities. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
