From “Spaces of Fear” to “Fearscapes”

Abstract

The article engages with theory about the processes of spatialization of fear in contemporary Western urban space (fortification, privatization, exclusion/seclusion, fragmentation, polarization) and their relation to fear of crime and violence. A threefold taxonomy is outlined (Enclosure, Post-Public Space, Barrier), and “spaces of fear” in the city of Palermo are mapped with the aim of exploring the cumulative large-scale effects of the spatialization of fear on a concrete urban territory. Building on empirical evidence, the author suggests that mainstream theories be reframed as part of a less hegemonic and more discursive approach and that theories mainly based on the analyses of global cities be deprovincialized. The author argues for the deconstruction of the concept of “spaces of fear” in favor of the more discursive concept of “fearscapes” to describe the growing landscapes of fear in contemporary Western cities.

Counter-mapping the mobile border: Racial surveillance and data justice in spaces of disappearance

“…Counter-mapping initiatives have the capacity to ‘locate in place phenomena that might have been thought unmappable’ (Popovski and Young, 2023: 7), such as sounds, sensations, or infrastructural arrangements premised on invisibility and disappearance. Recent contributions in this vein use visual, sonic and digital methods (that rely upon web-based geographic information systems such as Google Maps, for example) to study a range of social and cultural changes in different environments, such as patterns in gender-based violence (Fileborn and Trott, 2021), the privatisation and securitisation of ‘public’ space (Tulumello, 2015), and the construction of border walls (Margulies, 2023). As a collaborative project and art work, where are you today succeeds in digitally and sonically mapping the border’s spaces of disappearance at a particular historical juncture, defined by major shifts in the system of immigration detention and the social upheavals of the COVID-19 pandemic on the one hand, and by continuities in colonial bordering practices on the other.…”

The Second Displacement of Refugees: Urban Regeneration Against Commoning Practices in Belgrade's Waterfront

“…The othering practices in marking the barracks as “dangerous” and a “no‐go area” have important dimensions as they reproduce “stereotypes … and well‐worn cliché” (Roy 2011:225) that activate the politics of fear. Representations of barracks as a “fearscape” (Tulumello 2015) construct the refugees as threatening “others” and legitimise the exercise of an authoritarian power of displacement. In this context, during the winter and spring of 2017 the local media employed extensive negative propaganda that greatly influenced public opinion, and local citizens “repeatedly expressed their dissatisfaction” (Moratti 2017) as “the personal feeling of safety became seriously jeopardised” (Hristic and Stefanovic 2020:76).…”

Study of the perceived functions and the quality of physical boundaries of public spaces

“…As part of “proximate physical cues” and as signifiers of incivilities, boundary walls generate fear in public spaces, which however mandates addressing the actual crimes (Cozens, 2011; Nasar and Fisher, 1993, p. 190). To map the spaces of fear in ordinary cities, Tulumello (2015) proposes enclosures, post-public spaces and barriers as constituent sections of fearscapes. In this, the presence of elaborate security measures along the perimeters of various urban space types is indicative of the significant role of boundary walls.…”

“…Their role is ambiguous, since they divide, communicate and belong to both public and private domains at the same time (Madanipour, 2003). Boundary walls are implicit in the discourses of urban security, fear and socio-spatial segregation (Graham and Marvin, 2001;Hirt, 2012;Low, 1997Low, , 2001Tulumello, 2015;Vanka, 2014). They are considered as an impediment to the publicness of public spaces (Flusty, 1997(Flusty, , 2001Langstraat and Van Melik, 2013;Nemeth and Schmidt, 2011;Varna, 2014).…”

“…However, to comprehend the role of boundary walls in various urban space types of an Indian city, this study attempts to situate them in Carmona’s (2010) four-part contemporary public space typology. Even though publicness models are developed in western contexts, Indian cities are no exception to “the mechanism of the market” (Madanipour, 2010, p. 14) and “spatialization of fear” in urban spaces (Tulumello, 2015, p. 257) is becoming a pervasive phenomenon. Further, the implicit role of boundary walls is followed by the fact that they are meticulously designed objects, which makes this study relevant not only to academic scholars but also to the practising professionals.…”