An understanding of cities as active sites of collective imagination, invention, and intervention positions the city as undergoing perpetual transformation, shaped by active engagement and lived experience. By establishing this foundation, the particular concentration of my research can be located within the consciousness of the distinct, yet malleable city. The impetus for my inquiry stems from two concerning observations of contemporary urban processes: the spectacularization of culture in urban policy and the co-optation of a one-dimensional, oversimplified notion of diversity within the construction of new urban realms. While these terms are linked to particular understandings or constructions in our minds, exclusion emerges when entered into the debate over the capacity and composition of the public realm. This research identifies and aims to transform these patterns that have emerged within contemporary US cities. To do so, this research must address this pattern of construction: co-optation of diversity, veiled characterization of culture, and conscious and unconscious practices of exclusion. I approach this through two series of research questions. The first is concentrated on broad concepts inextricably linked to urban space where the intersection of social, spatial, and political converge:

How is diversity understood and socially constructed within the city? How are identity and culture used to construct and reproduce spaces of pluralism and inclusion within the urban realm? And related to diversity and culture, what are the particular mechanisms utilized in social, cultural, and political transformation?

The second series is specific to the City of Philadelphia, where I have chosen to situate my research:

As inquiries into identity and culture have been the work of theorists long before, given are a series of interrelated questions to not only guide, but also focus the research. What is the landscape of diversity politics within Philadelphia? Who is involved, and at what scale, in informing socio-cultural plans, programs, initiatives & policies?

While the site of inquiry is not necessarily restricted to the City of Philadelphia alone, a unique set of circumstances provide an opportune case study to reflect upon a larger discourse. Since the 1970s, Philadelphia has undergone a wide-range of change as power structures, which encompass a wide range of actors – from local foundations to city government to corporations, negotiate with urban citizens over the identity and culture of the public realm. Decisions over public funding allocations vary widely, programs and initiatives communicate an array of messages about the nature of the city, and a striking moment in its contemporary history occurs, Philadelphia seems to be establishing itself as a smaller-scale urban cultural pocket. Together these phenomena allow for Philadelphia to emerge as a center of arts and culture while simultaneously arising as a celebrated core of diversity. These conditions established a contemporary narrative of cultural city making as embedded within the domain of the political. While the context of particularities here are obviously not universal to all cities, this investigation can implicate new understandings of the interrelated conditions of identity, culture, and urban.

Locating the Gap, Establishing a Shift

As is obvious with most research, this inquiry sits within a larger discourse including cultural production, inclusion and marginality, notions of democracy and representation within the public realm, and the discursive condition of rights in urban space. Much of this exists within a wide and historic space to which this research contributes in modest, yet tangibly significant ways. The work of organizations such as Al-Bustan Seeds of Culture, has the potential for significant impact in shaping cities through the construction of a culturally inclusive urban future. As Edward Said informed decades ago, ‘‘partly because of empire, all cultures are involved in one another; none is single and pure, all are hybrid, heterogeneous, extraordinarily differentiated, and unmonolithic.’’ By engaging with individual identity and multi-faceted culture, Al-Bustan participants can build understanding and appreciation of one another's overlapping yet unique identities and explore together possibilities for alternative, more inclusive futures. The value of such work in shaping the city is that it is fundamentally based on appreciation and respect of complex identities and pluralism rather than one-dimensional representations of culture that are easily and often co-opted, as Said cautioned.

This leads to the larger intentions of this research - identifying methods to establish agonistic pluralism in the face of reductionist and exclusive practices - to identify the driving forces behind socio-cultural urban policy-making. It also attempts to inform how urban practitioners can engage with community-based organizations and policy-makers to design new types of initiatives that both stem from bottom-up practices and also construct a collective urban imaginary. In order to accomplish this, the selected methodologies aim to uncover challenges and structural barriers guiding this particular avenue of transformation: for example, examining the limitations created in coupling arts and culture with the creative economy. Additionally, to this end, the research looks to contradictions and ineffectualities within the current operating paradigm of the larger system. In identifying these barriers, pathways toward alternatives can be constructed. Strategies and tactics for more inclusive, agonistic practices can be discerned in support of the work of arts and culture-based organizations. Essentially, this practice aims to locate the gap of the current paradigm by first asking How is the urban imaginary utilized as an active form of practice to engage wider, often voiceless, urban citizens to participate in the construction of our urban realm? Second, Is the type of transformation discussed fundamentally intended to produce a paradigm shift within the urban realm, and if so, toward what new form?

Lastly, theoretically, this inquiry reaches to engage notions of knowledge production. This collaborative practice insists upon including alternative forms of urban knowledge in order to deconstruct representative appropriations of culture and, in its place, construct policies that prioritize and inherently value pluralistic practices of cross-cultural respect, appreciation, and agonism. Through mapping actors and analyzing relationships, insights into cooperation, participation, and dominant values begin to emerge. As I began this research, I was curious about the role various people and institutions held in shaping what our cities are now and in working toward a vision of what the future should be. I found myself thinking about who is really involved in the production of these ideas. Are our lived experiences in or knowledge of this place, considered? How can these other voices participate in a collective construction of the city?