Youth and Publicness

Abstract

Aspects of increasing digitalization reinforce tendencies to normalize youth, which is reflected in underestimating and misinterpreting mistrust and stress. Creative means of interacting in public urban situations encourages physical and object-related interventions between people. According to the present hypothesis, experiences in the context of these interventions have the potential to help meet growing individualization requirements. However, these requirements are increasingly underestimated and require appropriate trial treatment spaces. We analyze the possibilities of changing social relations in the public–urban spatial structure with the help of the resonance concept. We understand public–urban spatial structures of temporary appropriation as a relevant phenomenon for the ongoing socio-spatial construction of urban reality. By analyzing the resonance levels of appropriation processes, both the proportional world relations and the respective subjective experience can be described: subjects enter into a resonant relationship with objects that represent the outside world by allowing themselves to be affected and emotionally touched and are open to a reciprocal transformation. This article will examine the extent to which the consideration of the premises derived from resonance theory can lead to changed preconditions and expanded points of reference in the field of urban and spatial planning. In relation to the theme of this Special Issue, we hope to open up a discussion about possible perspectives on inclusive urban spatial practice based on resonance and an expanded definition of sociality.

1. Introduction

The present world is characterized by crisis-driven conditions (war, COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather conditions, etc.) and uncertain prospects (transformation challenges due to climate change such as increasing global migration, declining prosperity among broad sections of the population, decimated welfare state services, etc.). Today’s upheavals are of a magnitude that affects the identity of our whole society. From a scientific point of view, this is a major transformation that encompasses economic, political, social and cultural processes [1]. The modern idea that societies can develop for the better based on innovation and progress must be called into question. In the face of ongoing global warming, the growth crises and the subjective overload, a rethink seems necessary. The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic has evoked increased awareness of the fact that, in the face of (global) interdependencies and ecological threats, we should no longer pursue ideas of progress and individual emancipation alone. Current discussions on how society may transform itself in the face of climate change are moving along an open spectrum between diversification and adaptation strategies [2].

In particular, adolescents are faced with the challenge of finding their own ways to deal with deep uncertainties in society. In as early as 2017, a report by the German Bundestag on the lives of young people highlighted the fact that young people are increasingly suffering from disorientation and stress, while their voice has lost importance due to demographic changes towards people in the post-work phase [3]. Growing up reflects complex demands and includes educational requirements (to develop social and professional skills), as well as processes of self-positioning and independence [3]. During the COVID-19 crisis, the increase in mental illness pointed to the impact of repeated exit restrictions limiting the experience of self-efficacy [4]. Institutionalized spaces associated with family, education and supervised leisure activities allow young people to try things out only to a limited extent. In contrast to the impetus of youth, characterized by its dynamism and the pursuit of a future with a positive definition, young people were requested to demonstrate solidarity with preceding generations and to continue residing within the confines of their caregivers’ homes [5]. This aspect was particularly relevant during the pandemic, since a large number of adolescents surveyed lacked a place to hang out [5].

As young people were asked to stay indoors, they simultaneously tried to satisfy their need for autonomy by communicating with their peers via social media [6]. Their increased contact with the digital public sphere showed how difficult it was for them to distinguish private interests from social demands conveyed by their family, by their school or even by their local government [7]. In addition, the intensified use of digital learning formats has not been able to fully satisfy their need to participate in informal learning processes, to interact with other population groups and to explore the rules of informal social coexistence. Aside from helpful networking and communication opportunities, the intensified use of social platforms and digital media publics also had a negative impact on young people’s self-image and self-esteem [8].

On the basis of such findings, we address adolescents as the target group for our critical observations presented in this article. However, the contrast between urban–public outdoor spaces and the digital public sphere, which was temporarily exacerbated during the pandemic, cannot be generalized in this way. The social public sphere has long consisted of various overlapping sub-publics, both on a physical and virtual level. In this research, the focus lies on resulting problematic aspects that became particularly apparent during the lockdown caused by COVID-19. They point to the crucial role that urban spatial practices play in the interplay with digital public spheres for the democratic political demand for public opinion-forming. Our aim is to relate developmental needs in adolescence and corresponding bottlenecks caused by today’s society to public sphere theory and spatial theory. The aim is to show what expectations are being formed towards publicly accessible urban spaces in the light of advancing digitalization.

2. Materials and Method

In the face of digital transformation, the public experience can no longer be adequately described by traditional concepts of the public sphere. In the age of Twitter, Facebook and the like, processes of public communication and identity formation have changed dramatically. For a long time, the public urban space was perceived as a facilitator of such social processes. The spatial dynamics of the urban–public sphere are undoubtedly shifting under the influence of digital structural change in the 21st century. This is creating new conditions for urban and spatial planning. By exemplifying the current developmental conditions of adolescents, we will gain a deeper theoretical understanding of the possible implications of the transforming public sphere.

We intend to create an expanded field of reference that allows relationships to be established between the traditional public sphere, the digitized public sphere and urban–public spaces. Adolescents’ need for different kinds of public experiences acts as a connecting structural element. By illustrating how, in everyday life, adolescents ‘navigate’ between all three levels of the public sphere, we trace the ups and downs within adolescents’ urban spatial practices. By understanding the specific needs and conflicts of young people in the context of their ‘multiple public experiences’, this allows us to anticipate a broader understanding of emancipatory urban practices of various population groups (c.f. knowledge society).

The present study commences with a mapping of the conventional approaches to the public sphere as devised by both Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas. In the following, reference will be made to the distinction between private and public, which is important for our Western understanding of the public sphere, and a further discussion of this will be undertaken. This will be achieved by illustrating Arendt’s approaches. In contrast, the political functions of the public sphere in the sense of democratic opinion-forming will be demonstrated and further contextualized using Habermas’ approaches. In the subsequent step, an in-depth examination of the social and the resulting possibilities for describing the current dynamics of spatial experience and the public sphere will be conducted. In particular, Hartmut Rosa’s approaches to understanding the public sphere and the theoretical concepts of New Materialism will be discussed.

Both serve as the basis for our methodological approach to uncovering implicit normative dimensions in established discourse-theoretical concepts of the public sphere. In this context, we ask how communication is linked to identity, e.g., how the fit between the individual and society is conceptualized, which has been shown to be increasingly affected by digitalization. Finally, we discuss how the understanding of an urban spatial practice can be expanded, taking into account the premises discussed.

Methodical Approach

Our methodological approach, which we explain in more detail below, focuses on the constantly changing understanding of social systems of order. For the exemplary analytical consideration of the urban spatial practice of young people, we take into account the relational order involved (as a multidimensional structure of living beings and social goods) and further investigate their constitutional relatedness (poles of a relationship do not precede the relationship), whereby we also introduce the dimension of inherent relatedness (relatedness goes beyond communication).

The approach of Martina Löw, as outlined in her work, offers a framework for comprehending urban everyday life as a relational order of living beings and social goods. The approach of Martina Löw, as outlined in her work, offers a framework for comprehending urban everyday life as a relational order of living beings and social goods. In everyday life, individuals engage in the production and reproduction of their urban environment, as well as in the constitution of their identities and their place within the social whole [9]. However, material phenomena also exert stabilizing and irritating effects in social contexts. These observations align with those made in cultural and social sciences approximately two decades ago, in which matter, objects and artifacts were identified as significant elements of social reality [10].

Furthermore, in line with Donna Haraway’s insights, we emphasize with Katharina Hoppe and Thomas Lemke the significance of social interaction that extends beyond conventional expectations. The recognition that all elements are interconnected does not inherently engender a shift in attitude. Consequently, a re-evaluation and restructuring of the intricate network of relationships within the public sphere appears necessary. Matter is not perceived as inert and inanimate; even simple objects are not regarded as having intrinsic meaning solely in relation to their impact on human behavior. Rather, matter and objects possess properties and exert effects that interact with human behavior [11]. In this approach, the definition of socially relevant actors is extended to encompass other animate beings (such as animals and nature) and inanimate objects. In human perception, they acquire symbolic meaning in the context of everyday actions, thereby characterizing different relational qualities [11]. This understanding of perception corresponds to a definition provided by Bernhard Wadenfels, who declares perception as an expression of relationships rather than the identification of isolated characteristics or elements [12]. It therefore does not simply reflect the given and does not consist of ideas that we project onto our environment. Rather, perception can be defined as the active act of bringing something into appearance. Sensations play a special role in this perceptual action, as they imbue things with a particular color depending on individual moods [11,12].

The resulting ecological concept of life emphasizes this form of constitutive relatedness. The notion of poles of a relationship preceding the relationship itself is a misconception; rather, they become constituted through and within the relationship. Consequently, community does not arise primarily through social recognition—a competence that only living beings are capable of—but is based on relations of mutual obligation and engagement with others. This phenomenon can be attributed to a form of social immunity that protects individuals from external influences not aligned with the prevailing social norms. Consequently, societies often adopt a policy of social seclusion, effectively creating a barrier between themselves and those who do not conform to these norms. From an ecological perspective, this form of the dialectic of immunity can only be overcome by acknowledging dimensions of vulnerability, finitude and indeterminacy [11].

To be able to think of social relations between different instances of a certain gravity (meaning a certain internal drive), we finally address the concept of resonance, introduced by Hartmut Rosa in 2016 [5]. In his “Resonance Theory”, Rosa develops a strategy to capture the potential of what appears to be meaningful in terms of a guiding principle that offers orientation but, at the same time, symbolizes unattainability [13]: procedures of “transformation” that establish axes of resonance via forms of appropriation and provide a jointly transformed space for further exploration [14]. According to Rosa, experiences of resonance represent a momentary triad between the body, the mind and the tangible world. This triad arises from world relations that do not strive for availability but rather produce each other in connection with their environment, mutually influencing each other but always speaking with their own voice [5]. In a resonant relationship, the other can never be fully appropriated; instead, a certain stubbornness remains. This form of integrity is not revealed because it enriches one’s own being through its strangeness and unavailability. In his theory, Rosa identifies three axes of resonance through which world relations can develop. On a horizontal level, a resonant relationship entails the formation of relationships between living beings. On a diagonal level, it encompasses relationships between people and things or activities. Finally, on a vertical level, it involves the invocation of higher-level dimensions such as nature, art, history and religion [15]. The concept of resonance refers to a mutual interaction between two or more parties to which each contributes something of its own. The success or failure of relationships is based on structural, value-free conditions that allow for a diverse experience of resonance in the sense of mutual transformation in the encounter with the other.

The individual appropriates space by ascribing meaning to it, but this appropriation is also performed by the space itself. Materiality, accessibility and unavailability are specific dimensions in public space that allow for social interaction with people, non-human beings and artifacts regardless of expectations. For Rosa, the structure of relationships along the three axes described is the fundamental prerequisite for locating oneself in the world. Structural conditions of this kind are necessary to foster the perception the non-identical, a recognition of what exists outside the spectrum of expectations. Only then, can resonant relationships emerge that relativize subjective will and integrate action into a social togetherness in which vulnerability can be lived and experienced productively.

From the perspective of the individual, an urban spatial practice based on these premises offers the opportunity to actively and meaningfully engage with one’s environment. This engagement is shaped by the individual’s unique imprint on the space, as well as their personal memories and experiences. It is through this process of synthesis and interpretation that the individual can orient their actions in a way that is reflective of their identity and interactions with their surroundings [10]. Conversely, the individual is also an object insofar as they make themselves and their actions accessible to external interpretation and judgment through their public presence. Their actions and self-awareness become parts of a synthesizing process of those who constitute and appropriate a common space.

This study is of a theoretical nature and is not supported by empirical evidence. However, in the final chapter, a resonant perspective on the contemporary urban social fabric will be illustrated through the discussion of several selected cases. Different types of spaces in everyday urban life will be analyzed, including passage spaces and spatial infrastructure for leisure activities. By utilizing a series of premises derived from resonance theory, we demonstrate the attainment of unpredictable and constantly evolving aspects of use, which exert a lasting impact on everyday life. This process will elucidate the manner in which such an approach can assist in addressing contemporary issues arising in the course of digitalization.

3. Discussion

3.1. On the Conceptual Research Framework

3.1.1. Towards an Altered Understanding of Communication and Space

The urban–public sphere is typically associated with a definition of an urban space as not merely a natural and living environment but also a cultural one. In his analysis, Volker Gerhardt defines the public sphere as a concept that is closely linked to the tenets of democratic societies. On the one hand, the public sphere serves to create values and norms that are tangible and organizable in a common space that is accessible to all members. On the other hand, the public dimension serves to enable and guarantee the free expression of opinion in the presence of others. According to Gerhardt, the liveliness of any free expression of opinion and the debates that result from it have a social character because they already contain a justification, a reflection and the potential for a change in behavior [16]. Originally, Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas underscored the significance of these aspects in democratic systems. Nevertheless, their assumption of a human (and rational) actor sets limits to social analysis that need to be overcome.

Habermas posits that the exchange of disparate perspectives in public discourse, founded solely on the superior argument, culminates in a unified and rational understanding of the world, as all individuals are integral to its construction. In their statements, individuals assert that they are articulating reasonable perspectives on how they perceive the world. Speakers may accept or reject certain content presented by others [17]. In order to demonstrate the extent to which reason is reflected in the informal exchange of the better argument, Habermas makes the rationally competent speaker who is aware of their actions the point of reference. In doing so, however, he follows the assumption that speech acts can fully reflect the intentions that lead to action.

Other researchers such as Angelika Zahn question this premise by arguing that it lacks to address other highly relevant aspects of communication [18]. In correspondence with insights published by Charlotte Bühler, posture and habitus show a strong impact on how speech acts are interpreted [19]. So, even derogatory looks and gestures can evoke a feeling of non-belonging and marginalization. Furthermore, an individual’s geographic location exerts a significant influence on the processes involved in social integration, thereby facilitating the unrestricted development of personal perspectives. If one’s perspective on reality changes through communication, then the position of one’s own self (in the sense of one’s localization in the world) ultimately also shifts. Zahn refers here to Jacques Lacan, according to whom all meaning (of the world) has its origin in subjectivity [20]. For Lacan, if something is expressed through verbalization, the human being (in his subjectivity) can reveal themself to the outside world. In his view, every linguistic rule is preceded by a subjective meaning that arises from individual experience [20].

In her understanding of the public sphere, Zahn therefore takes into account that each individual is fundamentally involved in the process of subjectively attributing meaning. Consequently, it is only possible to transcend this internal perspective through the cognitive development of other experiences by creating analogies. This means that reference points must be found in one’s own background of experience to be able to cognitively comprehend the perspective of others [18]. With reference to Michel Foucault, who has shown that speech acts have empirical effects and constitute reality [21], Zahn claims that the ability to communicate is based on a multitude of experiences. We have revised the sentence. The indistinctly written lines have been crossed out. Please check the added yellow lines, which have been marked for your convenience.

In turn, repeatedly participating in communication processes promotes further social integration and social coexistence. Communication is therefore a central prerequisite for the subjective perspective of an individual to be constantly reorganized and for shared perspectives on reality to be formed. According to Zahn, as identity can only be experienced in comparison with others, communication and identity are closely linked [18].

But, regarding identity formation and communication processes, Zahn also points to another highly relevant aspect to consider. For Judith Butler, subjectivity is essentially characterized by power relations, as social roles and agency are assigned through categorization and classification [22]. However, power can be understood in both a negative and a positive sense. Zahn emphasizes that only the identification of a person (as ‘x’) by others enables self-knowledge and the productive development of one’s talents and abilities [18]. But identification can also inhibit the use of personal abilities. On the other hand, identifications can prevent the use of abilities when classifications and categorizations are constantly maintained without reference to individual characteristics. In this case, they aim to reduce individuals to specific, usually marginalized roles within society based on their physical and biological constitution [18,23]. Urban living conditions are based on a dynamic interplay between spatial structure, symbolic levels of meaning and actions [16]. As illustrated above, how social interplay is perceived by individuals and how individuals perceive themselves as part of this urban space remain subject to ongoing transformation.

According to Hannah Arendt, both the public and the private spheres have an important function in maintaining social coexistence. Arendt pointed out early on that the development of modern society, which began in the 17th century, contributed to the dissolution of both the public and private spheres [24]. On the one hand, both are mutually dependent: only the richness of the public experience enables the full development of intimacy, and, conversely, intimacy can only develop on the basis of a plural public sphere. Arendt emphasizes the positive aspects of privacy, as the hidden makes it possible to oppose the standardization of the public. Certain forms of social behavior, sanctioned in the public sphere, can only develop in the private sphere. Originally, however, the private sphere was considered a ‘state of deprivation’, because privacy means that others are absent, they have no presence, as if they do not exist [24]. Those who remain in the private sphere run the risk of being trapped in their own subjectivity. Private social contexts are usually selected and limited to a small circle of people, while the public sphere draws its meaning from the diversity of the surprising and unavailable. This is why reality is established primarily through the public sphere, since everyone hears and sees from their own perspective, and each individual experiences in this diversity of seeing, hearing and feeling a commonality that cannot be reduced to a common denominator [24].

Understanding is the essential basis of social interaction, and Arendt’s distinction between the private and the public takes on new meaning in light of digital accessibility, despite justified criticism. At the same time, we want to go beyond a discourse-based understanding of the public sphere, as it implies that public space is a concept of value-neutral and objective planning. With reference to Bridge, Sabine Knierbein points out that discourse-based approaches primarily promote a rational understanding of the urban–public sphere. Knierbein and others propose an expanded understanding of the public sphere that emphasizes the performative significance of public spaces [25]. The urban–public sphere appears here as an everyday social practice that goes hand in hand with conflicts and social struggles. Furthermore, a city and its urban living spaces are places where differences and cultural divisions come to light and can also be overcome. In a city, it is possible to be different, but it is also a place where wealth, power and privilege collide to a great extent [8].

3.1.2. Youth and Its Needs

The pandemic has demonstrated the high relevance of public urban living spaces in an exemplary manner. Several studies have shown that even temporary contact bans promote a lasting feeling of loneliness and significantly increase the risk of chronic loneliness [26]. The scientific community is currently discussing the extent to which the resulting increased consumption of media content (as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic) has led to lasting changes in young people’s leisure activities. Current research findings suggest an ongoing persistent imbalance between social interaction and withdrawal from the urban environment [4]. Under certain circumstances, a public space itself can also contribute to the impoverishment of social relationships. This may be the case if, instead of heterogeneous coexistence, firmly established structures enforce certain routines of action or standardize certain behaviors or if socially homogeneous groups are created through exclusions. The latter scenario arises when the utilization of a system is constrained by its intrinsic design or when potential hazards are precluded by the implementation of safety measures, rendering them irremediable [27].

Youth represents a period of searching for identity. It stands for an “in-between” state, as adolescents are considered neither children nor adults. However, adolescents can no longer be denied an identity in the sense of self-responsibility, whereas this is not yet the case for children. In early adolescence, young people acquire the ability to project themselves into both the past and the future in order to distinguish themselves from other individuals as a coherent, unified person. This goes hand in hand with an awareness of one’s own personality with individual needs and thus the ability to judge the world according to one’s own subjective expectations. In the presence of unknown others, young people learn to perceive themselves in an unfamiliar way [28].

To Bourdieu, youth is “just a word” [29], a categorization or classification that is primarily determined by social expectations. Even though the constitution of identity is a continuous development that has no beginning and no end point, from a social perspective, adolescence is seen as a separate phase assigned a specific social status. One reason for this is the empirical fact that the self-perception of adolescents is accompanied by increased visibility in social interactions. The potential assurance of an individual and independent identity is, at the same time, the realization of being part of society and an active participant in it. Being exposed to the public eye offers opportunities to develop beyond family relationships and to try out social roles [30].

Young people’s search for identity can also be described as a process of becoming aware of the social roles that are ascribed and granted to them in society [28]. Every new life they experience contains new perspectives on themselves and the world, while society as a whole is being continuously reconstituted. The insecurity of adolescents arises less from the question of who they are but is rather based on the question of how they can use their ascribed ‘suchness’ (‘So-Sein’) in social interactions in order to be a recognized member of the social reference group—in whatever form. In childhood, social relationships with adults are primarily determined by care; in adolescence, however, there is a form of stubbornness (Eigensinn) lived out in the public that determines acceptance or rejection [30].

From a sociological perspective, adolescence is a period of potential social disruption. This is due to the fact that it is a time when young people are transitioning from childhood to adulthood and must determine whether they will assimilate into the prevailing social structures or become a disruptive factor. The consequences of the latter can be considerable, including significant costs and the potential for profound social crises. In this respect, the phase of adolescence is always accompanied by social mistrust [31]. Young people are treated with indulgence as they still need to practice their social skills, but at the same time, they are expected to acquire these skills as quickly as possible. At the same time, studies show that the fulfillment of basic psychological needs such as self-esteem protection, orientation and pleasure gain/avoidance, among others, is a central prerequisite for young people’s well-being and motivation to learn [32].

In this contradictory field, urban living spaces play a central role, since they function as a stage on which young people can present themselves and experience their subjectivity while gaining consciousness for communal obligations. Young people in particular must actively work on combining their attributions in non-private contexts with those of the family and merging them into a coherent identity. As illustrated, the quality of the public experiences of young people on the verge of adulthood is a central prerequisite for possible success [33].

3.2. Exemplifying Research Concepts

3.2.1. About the Impact of Digital Media: Understanding and Identity Formation Are Intertwined

In a relatively short period of time, digital technologies have evolved into a pervasive cultural phenomenon that is still evolving and lacks clear guidelines. The increasing shift in the public sphere to social networks has not only resulted in the dissolution of boundaries and the differentiation of diverse subcultures, but the specific nature of digital technology also has an impact on the perception and appropriation of spaces [7]. This phenomenon has implications for all demographic groups; however, it is the younger generation that are most impacted, as they are typically engaged in the process of formulating their personal identities. In order to develop a stable and socially compatible self-image, they need the diversity of different perspectives and physical–visceral life [31].

One key aspect of digitalization is the shift in everyday routines. The possibility of prioritizing interests through making use of mobile applications such as Google Maps encourages people to forego independent exploration of urban spaces. It is evident that elements such as chance and improvisation, which have historically shaped urban life, are becoming increasingly irrelevant [34]. The responsibility for independently testing and experiencing new public spaces is subject to the prior assessments of an app and is therefore only partially the result of one’s own decisions. This has an impact on a person’s experience of personal responsibility and self-efficacy—two aspects that are particularly important for young people as they gain an opportunity to evaluate their own actions in terms of success or failure.

Acting in public inherently entails both the ability to act independently and the need to find one’s bearings within social norms [30]. Visceral, bodily experience and affectively appropriated discourse create the conditions for a process of transformation in which private opinions, which are linked to subjective interests, are transformed into political opinions—because only the experience of other positions motivates us not only to consider our own interests but also to focus on the common good. However, according to Rosa, this public practice must be practiced [7]. If the next generation lacks this practice, then they will also lack the competence to step back from their subjective private interests and experience and assess the social whole.

For Rosa, a shared public space of experience is therefore essential for developing a political opinion. If encounters are increasingly shifted to digital or commercial spaces, the diverse and varied forms of bodily physical experience will be lost and cultural practices will drift apart. Media meeting spaces cannot completely replace physical–bodily places of interaction, as analog and digital experiences are subject to different framework conditions. While urban–public spaces predominantly enable experiences that appeal to all the senses, digital environments reduce physical perception to seeing and hearing. Everyday encounters, including in the olfactory or haptic sphere, whether with individuals belonging to other classes or cultures or with fragrant things or living beings, cannot be avoided on the real physical level. Selective consumption of the public sphere, as is possible on the Internet, is only possible to a limited extent in the urban–public sphere.

From a psychological perspective, being in a relationship with another is linked to having an actual physical presence in the same space, be it in relation to other people, other living beings or nature. The central starting point for this is the human body. Joachim Bauer postulates that physical experience not only organizes neuronal networks but also significantly influences the networking of feeling and thinking [35]. The much-lamented filter bubbles created by digital algorithms [36] and commercially prepared content therefore not only result in a selective perception of social reality but also contribute to the fact that “the real-physical, i.e., aural, olfactory, haptic sphere of everyday encounters” with people from other social classes, fades into the background [7]. Only the all-encompassing sensory experience of the foreign, the unfamiliar and the rejected is able to broaden and ultimately modify attitudes towards the world.

3.2.2. Spatial Urban Practice and Pre-Discursively Shared Experiences and Knowledge

Subjective localization in the course of urban spatial practice always comprises two aspects: firstly, it enables agency by appropriating space in a way that is manageable for the subject through a subjective interpretation, and secondly, it means vulnerability (in the sense of being exposed), in that the individual exposes their self and their subjective appropriation of reality to evaluation by others. This aspect of vulnerability represents a fundamental dimension of social cohesion, as the reactions and judgments of others serve as catalysts for social adaptation and enable a shift from an internal to an external perspective.

In her understanding of urban spatial practice, Sabine Knierbein addresses Henri Lefèbvre’s spatial typology of “lived urban spaces”. This refers to places that are primarily created and appropriated through everyday routines [8]. Since everyday urban life tends to correspond to a chaotic coexistence in which emotionality and conflict are lived out just as much as conscious rational action, the forms of appropriation addressed here do not follow exclusively rational guidelines. It is precisely this lack of clarity that makes it possible to be surprised again and again and to act differently, beyond expectations and subjective intentions. In relation to questions about urban life, the focus is therefore on aspects of identity formation, sociality and interdependence. These reference levels enable us to examine the extent to which urban social interaction guarantees routines of action with as few restrictions as possible, sufficiently self-determined behavior and heterogeneous diversity. Materiality, accessibility and unavailability represent those central dimensions of the experience of the public sphere that make social interaction between people as well as with non-human beings and artifacts tangible.

From a neurobiological perspective, we are beings that are characterized by sociality and strive for resonance and cooperation [37]. This is illustrated by the fact that unfair treatment or exclusion (bullying) is registered by the brain as pain. They are therefore a breeding ground for potential aggression. Recent major occupational health studies have shown that “soft facts”, i.e., working conditions related to relationships and the regulation of stress factors, have become the main cause of illness. Where interpersonal relationships decrease in quantity and quality, health problems increase [37]. Studies suggest that reducing the use of social media over time has a positive effect on young people’s mental well-being, among other factors [38]. The absence of certain structural conditions leads to a fading out of the social, as it leads to the denial of social reality as a mutual reference and influence. By following axes or resonance in everyday urban life, structural conditions can be traced that include the perception of the non-identical, i.e., the recognition of what exists outside the spectrum of expectations. In this way, aspects such as vulnerability are productively captured and contribute to a readjustment of the production conditions of urban living spaces.

Today, the use of public spaces for political initiatives, demonstrations or as functionalized places to spend time in is taken for granted. Nevertheless, public spaces are increasingly failing to do justice to an understanding of the public sphere that is relevant to development—as exemplified in these remarks. This is due not only to experiences in dealing with digital sub-publics but also to urban segregation strategies, which are becoming increasingly common. These changes are primarily due to market-oriented urban planning approaches that strive for clarity and conformity in public spaces rather than promoting diversity. In the preceding two decades, the real estate sector has evolved into a pivotal entity within the financial industry. This is an arrangement that is intended to suit the requirements of funds, investors and pension funds. It does not appear to be intended to meet the needs of users. Countless planning processes follow technically optimized ideas of a rationally organized world. Instead of focusing on human action based on sensory perceptions and the associated symbolization processes, the focus is merely on functional reduction and economic calculation [39].

What is needed, on the other hand, are publicly accessible spaces both for the exchange of ideas and stories and for dealing with accompanying conflicts. At this point, however, it should be pointed out that our view clearly differs from the understanding of the public sphere that sees the streets as an “antagonistic battle zone in which the task is to assert oneself” [7]. This refers to current tendencies that aim to undermine the uncontrollability and openness of outcomes as part of resonance-based interactions.

3.2.3. Youth and Publicness

In regard to the comprehensively described needs of young adolescents, we consider it particularly important to take into account the complex structure of social relationships in urban spatial practice. In doing so, we aim to go beyond a model for mapping the relational order of living beings and social goods [9]. We are interested in constitutive relatedness in space, in which the poles of a relationship precede the relationship [10]. But this relational, constitutive relatedness can only be grasped by Rosa against the background of collectively shared ideas and narratives, which, in view of “inaccessibility” caused by publicity, continuously provide new possibilities for orientation.

In this respect, Rosa’s understanding of sociality is based on the psychoanalytical concept of “self-interpretation in the other”. As soon as people have public experiences (as already described), they expose themselves to the inaccessible parts of others. The individual is thrown back on themself to a certain extent and is thus given the opportunity to recognize themself [14]. At the same time, real–physical, affective and discursive encounters in a shared lifeworld also provide the individual with opportunities to access pre-discursively shared experience and knowledge. In this way, people can participate in collective narratives and, through this participation, continuously experience orientation (model) anew.

King and Gerisch distinguish between a model as an ideal that offers societal orientation, but at the same time symbolizes unattainability, and a model that, understood as a goal, structures social life with inescapable norms [6]. It is, above all, rapid technological developments that are successively transforming idealized social concepts into achievable goals. These go hand in hand with an increased competitive dynamic as inherent logic in the global economy, the modes of production and reproduction and the rapidly changing forms of communication, information and mobility in today’s societies [6].

As a result, individuals are increasingly exposed to optimization logic in their everyday practices. Even dimensions such as the body, private relationships and family life, which are normally considered incompatible with the demands of increasing efficiency and improvement, are affected. Just think of the increase in body optimization practices such as esthetic surgery techniques. This particularly affects young people, whose attempts to meet the expectations of perfection and optimization are often reflected in the form of psychological stress, health impairments, increased media consumption, violence and aggression or drug abuse [11]. However, they also act as “narcissistic sources of gratification” [6].

For adolescents in particular, diverse experiences and reactions to their social behavior, their habitus and their self-image are of significance as they may free themselves from the one-sided perspective of the parental home and gain a differentiated view by themselves. The greater the diversity of people’s experiences, the more diverse their ability to evaluate their own actions and respond appropriately to social situations will be. Therefore, in addition to digital and institutionalized spaces, urban social spaces are needed to facilitate productive connections between the different spaces in which young people act and communicate [17]. It is only through physical experience that reality can be appropriated and cognitive certainty gained about a real, existing world as it is experienced.

The anonymity of everyday urban life prevents young people from reducing themselves and others to their own attributions or even ignoring them completely. Since everyone inevitably exerts influence and is exposed at the same time, the physical presence of unknown others in the same space promotes the acceptance of living together with all those with whom one is mutually connected (as “power of the social”). In this context, resonance-relevant (as value-independent) experiences promote the process of a successful synthesis.

3.3. Wrap-Up: The Adolescent Subject by Means of Public Urban Spaces

Semiotic approaches (cf. linguistic turn), such as Habermas’, focus on the rational level of public action and thus reduce the actual experience of complex and dynamic processes in the public sphere to a few relevant aspects [11]. While in the last century, analyses have taken as their starting point consideration of a consciously acting citizen in order to emphasize the importance of a democratic public sphere, in view of digital structural changes, another important function of the public sphere is increasingly coming into focus: public action has to be learned and requires constant practice in order to not be unlearned.

We focused on young people because they are particularly affected when public practices are made more difficult or hindered. Of course, ongoing involvement in communication, the opportunity to discover the world creatively and curiously and the experience of unexpected encounters are highly relevant for all population groups. This is the only way to ensure that social integration is successful and political decisions are accepted. However, there are of course population groups that are particularly affected by the consequences of digital change. In addition to those who, for various reasons, do not have access to digital media, these include young people in particular since practicing public practices involves much more than simply expressing public opinions.

As demonstrated, the public sphere functions as a catalyst for the formation of identities that facilitate comprehension of the existence of multiple perspectives on reality, and that the subjective interpretation of the world is constructed on the foundation of one’s individual background and experiences. It is crucial to recognise that this background constitutes merely a fraction of the total reality. This requires physical presence in spaces because only through lived physical and emotional experience engaging all the senses can a sense of the common good be developed. For it is only in light of the “unavailable” [14] and the inaccessible that an individual gains the ability to assess their subjective appropriation of reality and to place it in its social context. Young people in particular, who are not yet fully aware of themselves, are faced with the task of combining both in their everyday lives—recognizing and accepting their individuality in their growing awareness of themselves and of life on the basis of social relationships and dependencies. If this does not succeed, a vicious circle may be created, and then the basic prerequisites for being part of the public discourse and constantly reconstituting social interactions are eventually lost.

We have shown that immersion in virtual realities means that the distinction between private and public, which is very important for Arendt, is becoming increasingly blurred. On the one hand, what used to remain hidden in the private sphere is put on public display online; on the other hand, virtual reality promises participation in a supposed public sphere but allows specific characteristics of the public sphere, the unwanted and unforeseen, to be ignored. The shift in the public sphere into the virtual world can therefore only assume the function of an urban–public sphere to a limited extent. The possibilities for control, for evasion, for covering up loneliness and for a lack of resistance in the real world have social consequences that make it necessary to reconceptualize the concepts of the public sphere and urban planning. We therefore propose a shift in perspective towards an expanded concept of the public sphere that encompasses not only the relationships between human individuals but also those with other living beings and artifacts as part of overall social interaction. However, this requires a multi-layered experience of resonance in the sense of a mutual transformation in encounters with others.

Aspects of increasing digitalization have been shown to contribute to a tendency to normalize youth, as evidenced by the tendency to under- and mis-assess suspicion and stress. It has been empirically evidenced that the undertaking of roles and the engagement in interactions within public urban contexts fosters the emergence of physical and object-related interventions among individuals. According to the present hypothesis, experiences in the context of these interventions have the potential to help meet growing individualization requirements. However, these requirements are increasingly underestimated and require appropriate trial treatment spaces [40].

The present study analyzes the possibilities of changing social relations in the public–urban spatial structure with the help of the resonance concept. The study understands public–urban spatial structures of temporary appropriation as a relevant phenomenon for the ongoing socio-spatial construction of urban reality. By analyzing the resonance levels of appropriation processes, both the proportional world relations and the respective subjective experience can be described: subjects enter into a resonant relationship with objects that represent the outside world by allowing themselves to be affected and emotionally touched and are open to reciprocal transformation. The present study explores the extent to which resonance theory-derived premises may result in altered preconditions and expanded points of reference in the domain of urban and spatial planning. A number of examples from urban spatial practice are used to illustrate how the concept of resonance can be productively incorporated into planning approaches.

The first example pertains to art in a public space initiative, entitled ‘Infinity Simulator’, conceived by the artist Volker Bussmann and situated within the ‘Höhenstraße’ underground station in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. The station is strategically positioned within a vibrant commercial district, replete with dining establishments, in the heart of Frankfurt’s city center, which also functions as a sought-after residential area. The recently restored light installation was originally installed on the first basement floor of the station in 1980 and consists of 44 hand-blown yellow, red, blue and green 2.5 m long light tubes and 2 spy mirrors. Looking inside, one perceives a seemingly infinite space, which is experienced by every passenger who must pass through this basement level of the underground system to reach the platforms. For a period of approximately 15 years, young people have periodically congregated in front of the installation’s visually intricate backdrop to engage in collective dance activities [41].

This installation has been utilized as a space for young people to rehearse their movements, as evidenced by the presence of markings in the area in front of the installation, which were introduced by the City of Frankfurt in 2009 with the intention of creating a public rehearsal space or dance stage [42]. Since then, the site has become a popular backdrop for young dancers’ Instagram and TikTok dance videos, and the light installation has attracted a diverse range of users. In addition, the area has been extended to incorporate an underutilized corner space on the same basement level, which is also well suited for young people to engage in dance or social activities. The basement has been designed to ensure visibility between young people and other passers-by, while also ensuring that there are no obstructions. This phenomenon may offer a potential explanation for the social tolerance exhibited by this area, which has enabled it to evolve into a ‘resonance space’.

From a resonance theory perspective, opportunities exist for affected social groups with divergent interests to perceive each other, if not interact, beyond the conceptual framework of urban–public transport infrastructure. Referring to the three axes of resonance proposed by Rosa, the installation contributes to enabling forms of resonance across all three levels.

According to Rosa, social relationships between individuals can be described on a horizontal level. In this context, young people experience themselves as part of both a peer relationship structure and a larger social whole. The public display of their (dance) skills takes place within the protection of a peer group but is simultaneously exposed to the gaze of strangers in the anonymity of the urban–public space. The interaction with the installation within the peer group, in conjunction with the potential for chance encounters with strangers, creates numerous opportunities for young people to experience self-efficacy and to address existential questions. A similar phenomenon occurs among other user groups; those who are receptive to it may experience a temporary release from their routines and encounter the unexpected. They can actively engage with the young people or simply observe them, communicating approval, disapproval or even indifference.

The diagonal viewing plane facilitates participation in the world, both for people and other living beings. The light installation in particular creates opportunities for space appropriation through its specific three-dimensional construction, while the space it creates functions as a mirror for young people (or passers-by) to check their movements. The installation adds a distinctive quality to the image by simulating infinity. The alienated mirror image defies conventional viewing habits, and the ego is presented within an expanded, surreal context that disrupts the familiar and points beyond the ordinary. Finally, on a vertical plane, through which spaces of experience within spheres of meaning such as nature, religion or art are depicted, the artistic work promotes forms of visceral appropriation of space that expand the pure functionality of the place.

A second example is provided by the media installation by artist Ken Lum in an underground passageway near the center of Vienna. Also conceived as an artistic work in a public space, the 2006 installation consists of a total of 16 reflective display cases known as ‘factoids’. These display real-time data on topics such as the world population, malnourished children, growth in the Sahara or the re-inhabitability of Chernobyl (Lum, 2006). A display case, situated centrally within the installation, houses illustrations, texts and books addressing population development and migration. The overarching objective of this project is to enhance the appeal of the location and revitalize the passageway. The installation also fosters resonance by drawing attention to social grievances that are frequently disregarded or repressed in daily life, encouraging passers-by to perceive the world from a broader perspective through the information they receive. However, in comparison to the first example, significant elements are absent. The stimulation is limited to the cognitive domain, and while the digital information can potentially encourage spontaneous interaction, it does not address the visceral level of spatial experience. The absence of niches or corners in this passageway zone further diminishes perceptions among strangers, and the area is not frequently visited by young people [43].

A third example that merits close scrutiny are ball game cages, which are offered by the City of Vienna to interested parties, preferably to young people. These were created in response to a decrease in interest among young people living in the city in engaging in regular sporting activities. The public cage structure offers a protected space with flexible use for group sports activities in the middle of densely populated urban neighborhoods, thus suggesting safety. It is important to note that this structure offers a certain degree of protection to bystanders in the immediate vicinity, addressing the pressing need for safety in urban environments. However, it is equally crucial to acknowledge the potential implications of such infrastructure, as the lack of supervision and the absence of a codified set of regulations can, in fact, foster aggressive and segregating behaviors, thereby highlighting a fundamental and largely hidden dilemma.

Surveys indicate that football cages are predominantly used by adolescent males who are motivated to engage in physical activity, often disregarding the needs of other individuals present [44]. It is noteworthy that youth centers tend to refrain from providing a social environment that is as unregulated as this setting. It is even more unlikely that a football club would condone such behavior. The activities within this setting involve the projection of balls at targets, which can be small goals, cage walls or even elevated heights, where a net is in place to prevent the loss of the ball. Within the confines of the cage, behaviors that are deemed unacceptable outside its boundaries are permitted, and users are exempt from showing consideration for others during their stay, despite the fact that a significant proportion of them are in a phase of life where they are expected to develop a sense of social responsibility and integration. Consequently, individuals who are less able to assert themselves physically, such as women, are likely to avoid such cages.

The ‘ball game cage’ concept facilitates a range of spatial and programmatically delineated utilization options within a confined area. The integration of a cage structure within the immediate urban environment does not necessitate social reference or interaction with other users of the public space. While individuals in the vicinity, such as drivers, pedestrians or football players, remain in the same urban space, they are granted maximum freedom in pursuing their respective activities (e.g., driving, walking or playing football) within delineated, autonomous action zones. Consequently, abstract regulatory measures of this nature appear to exert minimal influence on fostering urban social interaction.

Furthermore, the cage concept is predicated on hidden value assumptions: namely, that young people are noisy, require an outlet for their energy and consequently represent a burden, if not a potential nuisance, to other population groups through their behavior. Therefore, it is commonly assumed that they require their own demarcated spaces for action. Conversely, if young people are permitted to engage in activities such as playing on grassy areas or designated play streets, it fosters the development of an open space utilization framework. This framework encompasses a diverse array of activities, contingent upon the relational and social dynamics between users and the coexistence of multiple activities within a given space. In such scenarios, both young people and other participants are expected to demonstrate consideration for each other while engaging in their respective activities.

4. Conclusions: Contextualization, Limitations and Outlook of Research

The analysis of resonant relationships is predicated on the degree of consistency in terms of the proportional participation and expressive abilities and openness of those involved in order to remain accessible to external influences. In the absence of such consistency, a state of alienation arises, which results in an aggressive relationship between the world and the subject. In this case, the subject is no longer in an adequate response relationship with the respective section of the world (object). This results in a loss of ability to be affected and thus to feel self-efficacy.

The preceding examples demonstrate that diverse elements of the urban–public sphere can be delineated through the utilization of the concept of resonance. In instances where individual autonomy occupies a central position within the paradigm of the public sphere, as exemplified by the ‘publicly accessible ball game cage in Vienna’, which caters to the urge to move to its maximum capacity, the social dynamics between disparate interest groups are diminished. Conversely, if the concept of the public sphere is oriented towards the potentiality of a social, ‘resonant’ field of reference (for example, the infinity installation), personal freedom is subordinated to a superordinate whole and offers those present at the same time a common sphere of social relatedness under conditions of relative freedom of action. In the latter case, tolerance relationships become apparent that refer to a further specific potential aspect of the public sphere: the non-private sphere of the political–social sphere.

According to Knierbein, the absence of designated meeting spaces is a contributing factor to the absence of social interaction. With Castells, she argues that spaces should not be thought of as things in which society takes place but that spaces are society [8]. With Castells, she argues that spaces should not be conceptualized as mere locations in which society occurs; rather, the contention is that spaces are constituted by society itself [8]. According to her, the spatial and the social are not two separate aspects of the urban–public sphere but one and the same phenomenon. However, contemporary societies are no longer identified with space; rather, they are now primarily associated with perfection and optimization.

In our explanations, we attempted to shed light on the significance of urban spatial practices concerning the processes of both individual development and social integration. The focus here is on aspects that are particularly relevant to the developmental phase of adolescence. The classic understanding of a public space as a potential sphere for encounters and social exchange is considered by many to be an unattainable ideal [45,46]. Public spaces are often regarded as places of social exclusion. This also applies to the presence of adolescents, who are merely perceived as a disruptive factor in the clichéd idea of a ‘beautiful and safe city’ [47,48].

The success or failure of spatial and urban planning concepts is often judged on the basis of cause-and-effect relationships [39]. Sometimes, critical voices may overlook all hidden forms of social disintegration (like the exclusion of undesirable disruptive factors, whether that be homeless people, free-roaming animals, uncontrollable nature, etc. and the socially motivated instrumentalization of an urban space (such as ostensibly planned recreational and green spaces that are also intended to contribute to the economic upgrading of an urban quarter) is not taken into account. Furthermore, the socially motivated instrumentalisation of urban space is not taken into account. This includes ostensibly planned recreational and green spaces, which are also intended to contribute to the economic upgrading of the urban quarter. Urban social life is therefore not exclusively subject to the principles of social, conflict-burdened coexistence but is also determined by an overriding interest in maximizing benefits. The pressure to meet multiple requirements arising from profit-oriented benefits makes it difficult to include social aspects beyond cost–benefit calculations.

This promotes the impression that urban spaces are not suitable for the purposes of social integration and gives rise to the idea that normative public sphere concepts can only be implemented to a limited extent. The increasing instrumentalization of urban spaces (for example, for the purpose of tourism) evokes the impression of incompatible social demands. This is where our analysis comes in: our methodological approach draws on aspects of public sphere and resonance theory in order to shed light on the increasingly high degree of complexity of social integration processes as a result of digitalization. We differentiate between concrete spaces and social processes that are under the growing influence of digitalization. Our aim is to create a comprehensive understanding of hidden social processes that affect social interaction involving different groups and interests.

Theoretical premises shape a perspective on the possible integration and development capacities of public spaces. As an additional dimension of urban spatial practice to be taken into account, we propose an extended spectrum of involved entities beyond acting human subjects who are involved in social development and integration processes. It is crucial to realize that human individuals are only one part of a comprehensive set of relationships in social interaction. Being aware that animals, nature and materiality also play a role in determining the dynamics of social events implies accepting a greater social framework. Neither the subject nor the space can be understood as coherent instances that can be explained only in reference to themselves [49]. It is imperative to comprehend both identity and space as components of multifaceted, interwoven and ever-changing relationships [19].

In the context of urban spaces, social and political forces resist and attempt to counteract both hegemonic global processes and national policies and interests. However, it should be noted that this symbolic level does not imply an exclusive understanding of urban spaces as either anti-hegemonic or democratic. Instead, their antagonistic potential characterizes their nature and thus refers to the ‘right to difference’ [48]. The concept of emancipatory practice, akin to the processes of personal growth and development, is not confined to municipal boundaries but is instead understood as operating within a geographically coherent urban space, thereby challenging the conventional territorial boundaries that delineate an urban space. It is anticipated that further discourse will ensue regarding conceptual approaches, including that of “public without the state” (as proposed by Mark Purcell). This will serve to facilitate a more in-depth investigation into the manifestation of future public spaces within the context of transregional responsibilities and democratic forms of self-organisation [50].

In this discussion, the focus has been on the Western context. The remarks made refer to democratic societies in which digital structural changes have a specific impact on the public. Furthermore, the collective reference level for identity and integration processes, as represented by public spaces, has become increasingly transformed.