A tale of two squares: spatial iconization of the Al Tahrir and Rabaa protests

5.1 Hybridization

One of the means through which spatial iconization is realized is ‘Hybridization’. Hybridization refers to embedding a space within a space. For example, spatial texts, such as art museums, might show movies, or a shopping centre might run craft classes for children (Stenglin, 2004: 405), and so a multi-functional space is established. By embedding a space within a space, Hybridization functions as a tool of recontextualization. In this regard, it is significant to building spatial Bonding as it not only influences how people interact with a given space but it serves to recontextualize and, then, transfers the values of one field to another. Doing so, Hybridization aligns people into a complex community. This, in turn, facilitates the construction of spatial iconicity, therefore, expanding how people identify with the space (Ravelli and Stenglin, 2008).

5.2 Bonding icons

Bonding is concerned with aligning people into groups with shared dispositions. Stenglin (2004) defines ‘Bonding icons’ as systems of instantiating in-groupness and social affiliation through the fusion of interpersonal and ideational meanings. This, in turn, allows community members to identify with and rally around these icons as symbols of that membership. Correspondingly, Bonding icons are symbols of solidarity that function as a rallying device. In terms of urban spaces, Bonding icons, then, negotiate the matter of belonging.

5.3 Binding

‘Binding’ is concerned with the interpersonal dimension that exists in the organization of space. It considers the meanings constructed through the organization of space beyond the materiality of architecture. In this regard, Binding refers to the affects resources established between a person and the surrounding space. In other words, it addresses the ways the users identify with and react to the space.

Stenglin (2004: 202–205) points out that the way people talk about how they feel in a space is directly related to the materials and intangible resources used in that space. For example, when people say ‘I feel secure in this small room; they are correlating “secure” with “small”.’ Stenglin’s research primarily focuses on issues of security and insecurity in spaces. Thus, the Binding scale, according to Stenglin (2016: 136), expresses security within two parameters: ‘Bound’ and ‘unbound’ spaces. Bound spaces, she argues:

… evoke feelings of comfort and protection. They do this by enveloping around people, both vertically and horizontally. Vertical enclosure is provided by walls that “wrap around” occupants whilst horizontal enclosure is provided by ceilings that enclose people together with floors that provide security underfoot.

As for Unbound space, Stenglin explains that security is sometimes achieved as partial freedom from enclosure since open space evokes in occupants a feeling of openness and expansiveness. This notion is expressed in Figure 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Binding choices for security (Stenglin, 2004).

However, Ravelli and Stenglin (2008) point out that insecurity may be invoked by spatial choices which are Too Bound or Too Unbound. They explain that spaces that are Too Bound evoke a suffocating feeling in their occupants. Too Bound spaces, they exemplify, are like caves, tunnels, prison cells, elevators and mines. On the other hand, Too Unbound spaces do not provide enough enclosure for occupants. Such spaces are often found in public buildings such as museums and cathedrals, and may make people feel diminished, vulnerable and overpowered.

Ravelli and Stenglin note that Binding is represented by a scale, so there is a distinction between spaces that are strongly, weakly, or moderately Bound or Unbound (p. 372). Consider Figure 4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Binding Scale: strongly (st), moderately (mo), weakly (w) Bound and Unbound. (Ravelli and Stenglin, 2008).

As far as Binding is involved, there is more than just the invoking of affectual disposition. In spatial texts, the ways in which users are positioned within the space invoke a sense of dialogism (McMurtrie, 2012, 2016). Binding identifies how users react to the surrounding space and so evaluative Engagement resources are established (for more on Engagement and evaluative stance, see Martin and White, 2005). Engagement resources are concerned with the heteroglossice and monoglossic dimensions of discourse (see Bakhtin’s Dialogic Theory, 1981). Heteroglosic texts incorporate multiple voices, while monoglossic discourse presents only one authorial voice on a given issue.

The same goes with spatial engagement resources which deal with the extent to which the space allows for multiple voices. For example, they tackle whether the authorial voice of the institution is dominating and excluding other interpretations, or whether the design of the space enables more diverse interpretations. McMurtrie (2012, 2016) extends this proposition, arguing that spaces can invoke heteroglossic resources if there is enough room for the user to move around and have alternative perspectives within the space. On the other hand, monoglossic spaces offer only one perspective. As such, heteroglossic spaces are those spaces where users have the choice to do whatever they like, whereas monoglossic spaces are strictly controlled with firm restrictions. Consider Figure 5.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

System network for spatial engagement (McMurtrie, 2012).

In monoglossic space, the users navigate the space according to some type of ‘a priori semiotic agreement’. In other words, the users have no say over the functions of the space and only use it for the purpose for which it has been designed. As shown in Figure 5, heteroglossic spaces are either dialogically expansive or dialogically contractive (Martin and White, 2005). In dialogically expansive spaces, the institutional voice is backgrounded for the users’ voices to be heard. Unlike dialogically contractive spaces, expansive spaces impose no restrictions as there is access to all areas and users are free to do different types of activities. Although allowing multiple positions, dialogically contractive spaces are designed in a way that prohibits users from accessing these positions freely (Ravelli and McMurtrie, 2016). Accordingly, space monoglossic, expansive and contractive resources are realized differently either by rigidity, no restrictions and restrictions, respectively. Moreover, the various heteroglossic resources can be gradated from maximally to minimally (see Figure 5).

6.1 Al Tahrir Square protests

Al Tahrir protest urban space is iconized in Getty Images by its open and Unbounded environment. However, such a spatial dimension represents another aspect of Binding that constructs a relationship of ‘security’ between the demonstrators and the square despite the Unbound dimension. Unboundedness is visualized through the use of different shooting techniques. One of these techniques is the employment of silhouette (see Figure 6). The contrast of colours between the foregrounded black colour of the participant (protester) against the backgrounded lighting creates a spacious dimension and provides a depth of field, which, in turn, stresses the notion of Unboundedness. Due to the silhouette effect, the participant is depicted with no facial details which can be translated to what Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006) refer to as ‘locative circumstance’. Locative circumstances images mainly describe an event without focusing on the action contained. They focus on visualizing the landscape rather than the participants. Focusing on the setting further emphasizes how the protesters of Al Tahrir dominate and reclaim the square (Jansen, 2001).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Silhouette image representing spatial Binding. © Joel Carillet/Getty Images. Reproduced with permission.

Silhouette depicts space as an abstract, unbounded notion. This visualization depicts Al Tahrir Square as a place of high aesthetic values that would create a visual ‘space of representation’ (Lefebvre, 1991) where bread, freedom and social justice are called for. A considerable number of photos depicting Al Tahrir Square are taken from above, a bird’s eye angle, so as to highlight spaciousness and exaggerate crowd density. Due to camera angle, the protesters are abstracted into undifferentiated ‘bodies’ (Butler, 2001). Al Tahrir is visualized as a place where it is equality that permeates the space created between the protesters.

Visually emphasizing the presence of the crowd in the square underlines the performance of a new spatiality through which the protesters defy the pre-defined spatial practices of the square while reclaiming it. Spatiality of Al Tahrir, as evident in Getty Images, iconizes how, in the words of Butler (2015: 71) in referring to Al Tahrir, ‘the collective actions [of crowd] collect the space itself, gather the pavement, and animate and organize the architecture.’ These visual techniques of silhouette and bird’s eye view shooting visualize Al Tahrir as a ‘space of appearance’. Butler (2015: 77) argues that the space of appearance is not ‘a location that can be separated from the plural action that brings it about; it is not there outside of the action that invokes and constitutes it.’ The existing forms of political legitimacy are thus contested and redefined by the presence of the protesters in Al Tahrir space.

Significantly, iconicity of the Al Tahrir protest is evident from the aesthetic visualization of an Unbound space. Visualizing spatial openness emphasizes the theme of freedom underlying 25 January photos. Unboundedness of Al Tahrir protest space is visualized as well in Getty Images through the insertion of street naming signs. Depicting street naming signs in Getty Images, photos of Al Tahrir protest are visually highlighted by the shooting technique of a ‘telephoto lens’. A telephoto shot is used to highlight background distant objects and make them appear as if close to the normal size of nearby objects. This shooting perspective renders the street-naming blue sign hung on the bridge the most salient visual element in the photo, stressing its spatial functionality.

Interestingly, the street-naming signs, in their abstract form, correspond to Lefebvre’s notion of ‘representations of space’. These signs act as a visual statement about the nature of Al Tahrir protests. They provide a spatial layout of different densely populated areas where the protesters rally mobilization. Visualizing street-naming signs, then, symbolizes protesters taking over the heart of Cairo’s public spaces. It reveals the nature and attitude of the 25 January protesters. These named places on the signs may be perceived as representative of the wide scale of opposition. The crowd in Al Tahrir was not confined to the square, but filtered into the surrounding streets, alleyways and bridges as well. Conveying spatial metonymy, these signs reinforce the argument of the spatial Unboundedness of Al Tahrir Square. They visualize the number of alternative routes and access points leading to Al Tahrir. The boundaries of the protest are poorly defined, recalling Canetti’s second type of protests, the ‘open crowd’ as opposed to the ‘closed crowd’. Canetti (1960) argues that an open crowd is characterized by its spontaneous manifestation that seeks limitless growth. On the contrary, a closed crowd maintains a boundary with a limited number of access and exit points. This boundary, according to Canetti, limits growth and enables dispersal. As such, the current photo is not about depicting a sign but visualizing an open crowd of protesters.

One of the tools that can be used in three-dimensional spaces to evoke Bonding is what Kress and Van Leeuwen (2006) refer to as ‘symbolic attributes’. According to them, symbolic attributes refer to two-dimensional signs that appear in visual images. Symbolic attributes are usually salient objects. This can be achieved by foregrounding the object, or through exaggerating its size. Figure 7 demonstrates how symbolic attributes act as tools for spatial iconization.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7.

Symbolic attributes as tools for spatial iconization. © Karimphoto/Getty Images. Reproduced with permission.

Considering their salience and shooting angle, the Cross and the holy Quran with their inherent religious significance can be perceived as symbolic attributes. These two attributes act as tools of spatial inclusion. They suggest that the Al Tahrir protest is a place for all walks of Egyptian society and no one is excluded due to religion. As such, the photo identifies the heteroglossic nature of the Al Tahrir protest. In a built environment, using specific cues and symbols achieves both inclusion and exclusion, which in turn, stresses social identity and establishes boundaries (Rapoport, 1977: 248). In this view, the Cross and the Quran act as visual quotes for the various voices expressed in Al Tahrir.

The spatial visualization of the Al Tahrir protest in Getty Images represents it as a social event where freedom of speech and religious diversity are expressed. In other words, Al Tahrir is depicted as a place of collective expression.

Recalling Kress and Van Leeuwen’s (2006) notion of ‘symbolic attributes’, a number of Getty Images photos visualize what can be called ‘spatial attributes’ through the depiction of the protesters’ graffiti. The revolution graffiti can be perceived as spatial cues. Graffiti, as a distinctive visual expression, allow the transformation of the material dimensions of a given urban space. They are ‘aesthetic political acts’ (Philips and Montes, 2017) that revisualize Al Tahrir space and transform it into a ‘place of meaning’ (Creswell, 2004), that ‘detourned’ (Lefebvre, 1991) government-ruled spaces. Revisualizing urban space, graffiti here can be seen as imposing a process of spatial ‘automatization’ (Halliday, 1982) through which ‘the foregrounding of one [semiotic] is often accompanied (or achieved) by the backgrounding or “automatization” of other semiotics, to the point where they appear so normal and natural as to become “invisible”’ (Iedema, 2003: 40, cited in Lynn and Lea, 2005: 43). As such, the spatial representation of Al Tahrir is backgrounded and the semiotics of the protesters’ spatial practices and their ‘voice’ are foregrounded. Furthermore, graffiti are heteroglossic in nature since they create an immediate, direct form of engagement with the viewer (Jaworski and Thurlow, 2010: 21).

Graffiti also give the political activists the chance to build ‘counter-hegemonic’ spaces of representation in the urban landscapes in a manner that challenges the existing social order (Zaimakis, 2015: 373). As a visible record of a temporal event (Lynn and Lea, 2005), graffiti of Al Tahrir stand as an indexical sign to ‘ephemeral intervention’ which is ‘an event in which people convene in public space, using ephemeral elements such as images, texts, sounds, dance, chants, and massed bodies, in order to affect political change through revisualization of that space’ (Murphy and O’Driscoll, 2015: 328). In this regard, graffiti symbolize the protesters’ tight grip on the square.

Drawing graffiti, hanging an effigy, blowing a whistle, chanting, reciting poetry, playing music, or performing religious rituals such as praying are all hybridized forms that shape the identity of the urban space of Al Tahrir protests as visualized in Getty Images. Al Tahrir Square is depicted as an iconic place where festive protests take place, adding much to the heteroglossic nature of such protests where protesters have their own voice and have a say in the way they move through the space and what they can do in that space as no single political authority was in control (Gunning and Baron, 2014). Accordingly, Al Tahrir protesters correspond to Hill’s (2003) ‘Creative users’, since they give the square new and various meanings. The use of different ‘ephemeral elements’ such as slogans, placards, religious symbols, dance, chants and graffiti transforms Al Tahrir urban protest space into a ‘multimedia production’ (Murphy and O’Driscoll, 2015) where there is no dominant spatial practice but only an unorganized and uninstitutionalized search for freedom and social justice. Al Tahrir representational space as visualized in Getty Images emphasizes the protesters’ ‘creative’ spatial practices that contest Al Tahrir pre-defined urban space. Getty Images visualizes Al Tahrir protest as a flexible space that can afford different uses and activities where protesters provide a creative interpretation of the already organized space.

6.2 Rabaa sit-in

A considerable number of Getty Images photos demonstrate spatial iconization of Rabaa camp by the means of Hybridization. The depiction of tents and linen spread with pegs for drying, peddlers’ carts and a football pitch within the Rabaa sit-in represents a particular dimension of spatial Hybridization. These examples of spatial recontextualizations render the camp as a place for shopping, resting, entertainment and feeling at home. Combining different micro spaces creates a ‘multifunctional space’ (Lefebvre, 1991) where the users of space perform various activities that enact a ‘multiplicity’ of urban functions. It can be argued that such multifunctional properties embedded in the Rabaa sit-in create an interpersonal Binding that defines the relationship between the protesters and the protest space as being comfortable and familiar. As such, spatial iconization is achieved by visualizing the practices of solidarity, affiliation and belonging. By adding tents or personal belongings, protesters ‘privatize’ the protest urban space and metaphorize it into a home.

Rabaa protesters are defined in Getty Images through the ways in which they use the space. Urban users perform identity by using public space (Shortell, 2012: 26). Using public space ‘binds’ users into one community. It is no longer a mere space for pedestrian movement, but rather a place where a diversity of social, economic and recreational activities take place. However, Hertzberger (2005, cited in Ravelli and McMurtrie, 2016: 34), an architect, argues that when content is added to a spatial text, or in other words, when the content is multifunctional, as is the case with the Rabaa sit-in, the potential for the space to be more frequently used increases. This, in turn, increases the ‘accommodating potential’ which makes space more receptive to different situations, thus increasing the population of the space and potentially increasing a sense of community. However, the over presence of spatial uses and functions may come at the expense of personal freedom. Hertzberger states that adding multifunctionality to space renders it rigid and inflexible. In other words, it leaves users of the spatial object too little freedom to interpret its function in the way they want. ‘The user is thus subservient to the form and the concomitant a priori “agreement”’ (Ravelli and McMurtrie, 2016: 177). In this view, it can be argued that the ‘institutional’ voice of the Muslim Brotherhood Group is the dominant or even the only voice in the Rabaa sit-in. The authorial voice of the Brotherhood positions the protesters to use the urban space one way.

Accordingly, the residents of Rabaa may be perceived as, in Hill’s (2003) words, ‘passive users’, since they collectively, unlike the Al Tahrir protesters, preserve the spatial functionality of the sit-in as dedicated by the Brotherhood Group. They are compliant users who use space as it is meant to be by the Brotherhood Group, which was concerned with conveying the idea of an Islamic protest demanding the reinstatement of the legitimate president, Mohamed Morsi. However, the term ‘Passive’ used here, following Hill, rather challenges the commonsensical and traditional understanding of the word ‘passive’, meaning ‘doing nothing’, as in this case it means being compliant with the functionality of the space. Although they are involved in the hybridization of Rabaa Square, yet it seems that the protesters are doing so in an organized pre-planned way that serves the Brotherhood Group’s ‘exclusionist policies’ (Arafat, 2017). Such spatial practices deny the sit-in the spontaneous and ‘creative’ acts of protesting characterizing Al Tahrir protests, which gives new meanings to the square.

Another example of spatial Hybridization is evident in the photos depicting the protesters as praying. These photos echo spatial Hybridization since they embed the space of worship within the space of protest. Hybridization in the current example recontextualizes the values of a mosque to the Rabaa sit-in so as to align protesters religiously. The recontextualization of a place of worship dedicated to perform religious rituals into an urban protest space is significant. It underlines the transformation of an icon of protest, violence and threat into an icon of peaceful worship. Correspondingly, iconization here dissociates the sit-in from any posed threat to the national security. However, hybridizing a space eliminates or excludes certain representational contents, while preserving representational functionality (Ravelli and McMurtrie, 2016: 35). This, in turn, reveals the monoglossic nature of the camp where Islamic prayers are the only religious rituals that are allowed. Spatial Boundedness and social exclusion are conveyed through the depiction of barricaded entrances to Rabaa. The entrances to the sit-in were limited in number due to barricades constructed by protesters along the two streets of Al-Nasr and Al-Tayaran. Such barricades highlight the boundaries of the protest space and help the sit-in capacity to be calculated. This type of protest is called a ‘closed crowd’ (Canetti, 1960). Although indicating safety and protection, the spatial enclosure and Boundedness of Rabaa enact restriction and social exclusion as well. This is visually depicted in the over presence of bricks and concrete blocks. However, interpersonally, the iconic Boundedness of Rabaa provides a sense of enclosure and privacy for occupants, which, in turn, achieves social solidarity and in-groupness.

The notion of establishing spatial in-groupness and exclusion is further stressed in photos visualizing the supporters of the ousted Mohamed Morsi checking men at brick or sand barriers set up for protesters to enter Rabaa camp. This, however, visualizes the Rabaa sit-in as a monoglossic space. The construction of check points depicts the sit-in as being strictly controlled. The spatial interpersonal relation established between the urban space and the protesters here indicates that this space does not welcome any different voice to enter. The camp is shown as a political institution that has an authorial voice – the Muslim Brotherhood Group – over the protesters themselves. From the above examples, it can be said that Rabaa camp is a controlled space with limited entrances and controlled access points. This recalls Canetti’s (1960: 70) definition of the ‘closed crowd’ which ‘creates a space for itself which it will fill … The entrances to this space are limited in number … the boundary is respected whether it consists of stone, of solid wall, or of some special act of acceptance, or entrance fee.’

In photos depicting Rabaa camp, inserting symbolic attributes suggests spatial exclusion as well as in-groupness. Spatial exclusion is emphasized in the Rabaa photos by the visualization of the Quran and the posters carrying Morsi’s photo. Visualizing the holy Quran implies the affiliation of the protesters solely to Islam which refutes the presence of any non-Muslim protesters in the camp. As for the posters, they carry significant iconic values since posters contain a ‘high degree of visual impact and visibility … A poster aims to arrest, hold, persuade, implant an idea and give specific information’ (Teo, 2004: 189, 190). The posters evoke sharing solidarity with the Brotherhood Group, emphasizing exclusion. As such, the symbolic attributes found in the current group of photos are visually employed as bonding icons that help the protesters to mark their affiliation to the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover, these attributes sustain the monoglossic nature of Rabaa camp which refutes the presence of any different voice.