The Law faculty as a landscape of exclusion

GE3224 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

GROUP PROJECT:

THE LAW FACULTY AS A LANDSCAPE OF EXCLUSION

Done By:

XXX UXXXXXY

INTRODUCTION

The Law and Arts faculties in the NUS campus are located in close proximity, and instances whereby students from the two faculties use the other’s resources are fairly frequent. However, the recent uncovering of the unofficial SNAILS Act (APPENDIX A) which was drafted by law students and widely circulated has hinted at some form of antagonistic relationships between the two groups of students.

Upon reflecting on personal experiences with the landscape of the law faculty, we then realised the strong sense of elitism present among the law students, thus making non-Law students feeling a sense of non-belonging when in the Law faculty. Furthermore, we have recognised the Law faculty to be differing from its surroundings in terms of its architecture, which seemed to compound its detachment from its surroundings. Such observations led us to postulate that there are underlying reasons behind the elitism present in the landscape of the law faculty, and the incongruence of the landscape serves to play a part in perpetuating the social boundaries.

Hence, in our paper, we strive to uncover the processes behind Law students’ sense of superiority over Arts students and examine the multifaceted processes that simultaneously operate in physical and social manners in the space of the Law faculty that has resulted in it being a place of “non-belonging” for Arts students. Furthermore, we shall show that the law faculty, besides being a canvas upon which the law students exert their power through elitism and notions of a normative landscape, also serves to perpetuate the divide between Law and Arts students and thus, strengthening its position as a landscape of exclusion.

In the subsequent paragraphs, we shall first examine our methodology, followed by an introduction of the concepts and ideas relevant to our study. Finally, we will present our framework for analysis of the landscape, and elaborate upon that to present our arguments.

METHODOLOGY

The methods employed in this project are a good mix of primary and secondary data. Primary sources include questionnaire surveys and interviews, while secondary sources encompass not only academic journals, newspaper articles, books but also informal publications such as weblogs.

Questionnaire surveys (APPENDIX B) were conducted among 23 law and 26 arts students in National University of Singapore (NUS) to gather their opinions of one another. In addition, another survey (APPENDIX C) was also performed for 38 respondents to ascertain the general perceptions of Singapore’s population towards arts and law students. The objectives of these surveys are firstly, to validate one of our key assumptions in which societal perceptions incline towards a presupposition that law students are comparatively more superior on various scales and secondly, the surveys seek to identify differences between arts and law students on a perceptional basis for our further examination.

Interviews were conducted on a separate occasion for 1 arts and 1 law respondent. The interviews identified more specific ideas surrounding the perceived superiority of law over arts students, and how these differences may potentially be inscribed in the existing law faculty landscape. An interview was also conducted with XXX, Senior Manager of C J Koh Law Library to ascertain the role of institutions in this paper. In addition, an email interview conducted with Gregory Vijayendran, a partner in law firm Wong Partnerships, who graduated from NUS Law Faculty, allowed us to explore the temporal dimensions in the antagonism.

Secondary data further substantiates our primary findings. Reviews were done on a wide range of literature and media resources, and will be further discussed below. Many blogs (APPENDIX D) which have published opinions on the issue of the law faculty as a contested landscape have also been perused over, and used to gain an understanding of the issue on an individual and personal level.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There have been certain concepts and studies introduced in the academic world that we have found to be useful in aiding our study and understanding of the issue at hand. The concepts below have been used to frame our analysis of the law faculty as a landscape of exclusion.

It is important to note that “places” are not empty, meaningless arenas within which people operate. According to John Agnew (1987), structures and institutions create a framework wherein which individuals experience their everyday lives. An individual’s experience of the place, based on his or her social status, education, time spent in the place and other life experiences then mixes with the communal socio-cultural definition (Kuusisto-Arponen,2003) or perception of the meaning of the place to produce a landscape that has particular meaning to the individual. The landscape itself then serves to perpetuate or shape preconceived notions people might have of the place and its occupants. Spatial and social spheres are therefore intertwined and the relationship between them is dialectical.

Another important notion is that of a place getting its distinctive characteristics and meanings through interaction with other places and communities. Identification with a place requires a firm basis and ideological foundations which people can identify with. Moreover, socialization, a sense of place and the physical structures of the defined place often require boundaries and signified division lines to differentiate between the included and the excluded. Hence, the comparison between “our” place and “their” place always happens, brought about by the categorization of people in a society into “us” and “them” based on generalised characteristics (Jenkins, 2000). When people are able to differentiate between ‘us’ and ‘them’, it generates a desire to hold and defend ‘their’ piece of land and thus the issue of territoriality arises. Sibley suggests that representation is involved in our understandings and creation of ‘other’ people and ‘other’ places in our imaginations (Sibley, 1996). In turn, these representations of people and place affect the ways in which the places and people being represented are related to.

In Geographies of Exclusion (Sibley, 1996), the idea that the home provides a key example of how a human desire for a purified environment results in rituals centering on the expulsion of ‘threatening’ materials through housecleaning is reflected through the issue of territoriality where individuals desire to “spring-clean” their territory of the “others” that do not belong.

This can be done through the transformation of the territory into a normative landscape where cultural norms and expectations are transmitted through place and landscapes, and people who do not belong will be excluded. Cultural norms and expectations in the form of verbal and non-verbal cues are used to allocate ‘categorical identity’ to hitherto unknown others whom we encounter in ‘our territory’ (Jenkins,2000). When people do not conform, actions may be taken to put – and keep – people ‘in their place’. This process is largely informal but it may be one of the most potent form of social exclusion. We will touch on this in further sections of the paper where we examine reactions of Law students to the transgression of non-Law students into their territory.

Transgression (crossing of geographical and/or social boundaries) occurs when individuals appear ‘out-of-place’(Cresswell,1996), e.g. Arts students appearing in Law library, challenging taken-for-granted expectations of what is supposed to be found where. This can be unintentional, resulting simply from individuals seeking to use particular places in a way that inadvertently challenges dominant expectations or ‘trespassing’ into territories that one does not belong in. At this point in time, it can be interesting to keep in mind that sometimes the cultural norms are so taken for granted, to the extent that Law students are not aware of the existence of such territorial behaviour until an ‘out-of-place’ act has been committed.

Therefore, in the above literature, we see the recurrent theme of boundaries, whereby social boundaries and spatial boundaries are mutually reinforcing due to the inherently dialectical relationship between social and spatial spheres in the formation of “place”. In our study of the law faculty, we shall further explore these complex relationships between the social and the spatial, and apply the above concepts in our understanding of the landscape of the law faculty.

LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS

In the following paragraphs, we seek to understand the processes which have made the Law faculty a landscape of exclusion. Based on our preliminary understanding of the situation, we postulate that societal perceptions of Law students being superior to Arts students have been internalised into the students’ self-perceptions, allowing law students to gain a sense of superiority over the Arts population. As a result, they feel empowered to inscribe their ownership of the Law faculty into the landscape, manifested in for example, the SNAILS Act, and the elitist behaviour of Law students, thus turning the Law faculty into a normative landscape. Furthermore, such exclusion is also perpetuated through the landscape, be it unintentionally through the incongruous exterior of the Law faculty, subtly through the closed doors to Law faculty, or even deliberately through the presence of signs excluding non-Law students from the Law library. These processes are summarized in the framework below (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Framework of our Analysis -- Processes through which the

Law Faculty becomes a Landscape of Exclusion

Societal Perceptions

Through our survey, it can be clearly seen that the larger society holds law students in higher regard than they do arts students. For all the questions, when given statements that reflected positively on a person, the response average for the likelihood of the person being associated with the law faculty is 4.22 (on a scale of 1-5, 1 being the least likely and 5 being the most likely), while the response average for arts shows a drastic difference, standing only at 3.11.

1. "Mr. A has what many deem a successful career." On a scale of 1-5 (1 being the least likely and 5 being the most likely), rate the likelihood of Mr. A being...

Response Average

From the Law faculty

0% (0)

3% (1)

5% (2)

53% (20)

39% (15)

4.29

From the Arts faculty

6% (2)

19% (7)

53% (19)

17% (6)

6% (2)

2.97

Total Respondents

Table 1: Example of Survey Question and Response Averages

Therefore, from our survey it can be seen that society does view law students as superior to arts students. Over time, through the process of internalization, such societal beliefs are accepted by people to be true (Ferrante, 2003), which results in the self-perception of law students as superior to arts students. This is also supported by the observations of Mr. Vijayendran, who agreed that the proliferation of fat paychecks among law graduates could have contributed to such a “superiority complex” (Email Interview, 1 April 2006) As a result of this “superiority complex”, they feel empowered to inscribe their presence and ownership onto the landscape of the law faculty, creating a sense of territoriality, mainly manifested through two avenues -- a) the actions of the law students and b) the landscape.

Inscribing Ownership through Actions of Law Students

The law students have shown great disdain towards what they have seen as an “invasion” of SNAIL (an acronym for Students Not Actually In Law) into the law landscape (not just the library itself). This is coherent with the discourse of combat, with choices of words, such as “war” and “colonized” (Davis, 1998), used in some of the blogs by some of the law undergraduates.

While one might argue that blogs as a form of popular culture, and do not carry as much as weight as official statements, we argue that blogs have more power to transmit the biased opinions of a selected few within the law community over space (Bunnell, 2006) and reproduce such biased opinions of the law community with greater pace and efficiency precisely due to its sheer informality (Mukerji and Schudson, 1986). The colloquial way in which the stereotypes are presented is more readily accepted by the masses without much questioning, and the speed in which further dissemination occurs is a lot quicker than official statements due to the fact that they are carried out through exclusive social networks.

This could further explain of creation of a SNAIL act, which could be a way of formalizing and legitimizing the prevention of non-law undergraduates from polluting the “landscape” through a supposedly tongue-in-cheek manner. However, such creation is far from being innocent as it proclaims, but rather, filled with expectations of what constitutes a normative landscape, and reflects strongly upon the usage of the law faculty by arts students as “transgression”. (Cresswell,1996).

Such a normative landscape is extended beyond the physical boundaries itself, and also manifests itself in the social behaviours of law students, who have been observed by many to be cliquish and socially exclusive, with strong notions of insiders and outsiders (Relph, 1976), as reflected in the SNAIL Act, which serves to embolden the distinction between the law students and the others. This has not gone unnoticed by our non-law undergraduate respondents, with “proud/arrogant” and “elitist” being the most common adjective being used to describe the law undergraduates (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Top Adjectives used to describe Law Students

We thus see a strong categorisation of space manifested, where the lack of mixing between these two groups of students generates sharp boundaries between “us” and “them” (Kunsisto-Arponen, 2003), contributing to the formation of the law faculty as a exclusive landscape.

Role of Landscape in Perpetuating Exclusion

The exclusion of Arts students from the Law landscape is not only inscribed into the landscape, but also further perpetuated by the landscape itself. The ways in which the landscape serves as a tool to facilitate exclusion could be unintentional, subtle, or even deliberate.

Unintentional Exclusion

The best example of unintentional exclusion in the law faculty would most probably its incongruous architecture. As seen from the pictures below, the architectural style and colour scheme (Picture 1) of the law faculty does not fit in with its surroundings, thus strongly distinguishing it from the rest of the NUS campus.

Picture 1: Difference between Architecture of Arts and Law faculties

Such a difference is recognized by students from both the law and arts faculty, as seen in our survey results, where a majority register a noticeable difference between the physical architecture of the law faculty and that of its surroundings (Figure 3 and 4).

Figure 3: Responses from Law Students

Figure 4:Responses from Arts Students

One may argue that the difference between the law faculty and its surroundings can be logically attributed to the fact that it had been recently renovated in 2002, thus making no aesthetic sense to make it look older so as to fit in with the surroundings. However, taking the newly constructed Student Service Centre in NUS as a counter-example, it becomes apparent that a new construction can still fit in with its surroundings, as the SSC does not look out of place at all due to its complementary colour scheme (Picture 2).

Picture 2: The New Student Service Centre

Therefore, although it is unintentional, the difference in physical architecture of the law faculty has strongly detached itself from the context of its surroundings, thus increasing the consciousness of students of it as a separate landscape.

Subtle Exclusion

It has been observed, that on most occasions, the doors to the Law faculty are closed (Picture 3).

Picture 3: The Closed Doors of the Law Faculty

The closed doors serve as a marker of territoriality, strategized to assign people they deem to be outsiders to areas outside of the boundaries (Agnew, 2000), so as to exercise their power over the space within the Law faculty. As our interview with the senior manager of the CJ Koh Law Library, XXX, revealed that she found law students a closely-knit group, and thus, very protective of their space. Therefore, they prefer to create a bubble and set up a wall between law students and the outsiders, hence discouraging the transgression of non-law students into what law students view as “their” space.

Deliberate Exclusion

The most remarkable manifestation of deliberate exclusion of Arts students from the Law faculty would be the presence of a sign which stated that non-law students may be asked to leave if the library is full to make space for law students. The law library is the only library on NUS campus to have enforced such a rule. Although the sign has been taken down following a change of management, the memory of the sign still remains with many students, and serves to reinforce the belief of law students being different from arts students, and is agreed upon by our interviewee, XXX. However, on a field observation, we noticed the sign at the faculty entrance which says “Members Only” (Picture 4), which then outrightly forbids the use of the faculty by non-Law students. The sign highlights and reinforces the ownership of the law library as belonging to law students, when other faculty libraries are not accorded with the same treatment.

Picture 4: Exclusivity at the Law Library: "Members Only"

Picture 5: Membership check desk at Law Library

Furthermore, with the exodus of the Law faculty to the Bukit Timah campus next year, it is feared that this divide between law and arts students (as well as with the rest of the NUS population) will be further exacerbated. The law faculty will then lose its only linkage of proximity to the NUS campus as it becomes isolated. It may bring the already rife notion of elitism to new heights as what previously was a social separation now becomes physical, further deliberately excluding the rest of the NUS population from the Law faculty.

CONCLUSION

We have shown in the above analysis, how societal perceptions have caused a self-perception of superiority among law students, and consequently the manifestation of territoriality in the law faculty as the students feel a need to “protect their territory”. Hence, an invasion of the “others”, in this case being the Arts students, have been seen as transgression, then evoking negative reactions from the law students, leading to the exacerbation of social divides between law and arts students. The landscape then serves to perpetuate such a divide with a spatial element, either unintentionally, spatially, or deliberately, which is likely to worsen in the future with the movement of the Law faculty away from the main NUS campus.

Hence, using the above framework proposed for landscape analysis, we have clearly illustrated the various processes and power relations at work in the formation of the law faculty as a landscape of exclusion, and how the landscape itself serves to perpetuate such a divide. We have also detailed the social and spatial ways in which such boundaries are enforced, allowing us to gain an understanding of the complex relations between place and society, and an appreciation of the ways in which they are mutually reinforcing and played out over the landscape.

Landscape, contrary to popular notion, is far from being merely a product. Instead, as examined in the issue of the NUS Law Faculty as a landscape of exclusion, we have seen that landscape also wields the power to shape the processes occurring within, and thus, beyond being a product, is also an agent in the dynamic interactions between the social and spatial spheres.

REFERENCES

Agnew, J. (1987) Place and Politics: The Geographical Mediation of State and Society. Boston: Allen and Unwin.

Agnew, J. (2000) Classics in Human Geography Revisited: Commentary. Progress in Human Geography, 24(1), pp. 91-99.

Bunnell, T. (2006). Lecture on Multiculturalism and Postnationalism. GE3224: Cultural Landscapes.

Cresswell, T., (1996). In Place/Out of Place: Geography, Ideology, and Transgression. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Davis, M. (1998) ‘Fortress Los Angeles: The Militarization of Urban Space’, in Judd, D.R. and Kantor, P.P (eds), The politics of urban America: a reader. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 317-334.

Ferrante, J. (2003). Sociology. Singapore: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Jenkins, J., (2000). Categorization: Identity, Social Process and Epistemology. Current Sociology. 48(3), pp. 7-25

Kuusisto-Arponen, A.K, (2003) Our Places-Their Spaces. University of Tempere Press

Mukerji, C. and Schudson, M (1986). Popular Culture, Annual Review of Sociology, 12, pp. 47-66.

Sibley, D. (1996) ‘Outsiders in society and space’, in S. Daniels and R. Lee (eds) Exploring Human Geography. London: E. Arnold.

APPENDIX A: SNAILS ACT

SNAILS OFFENCES ACT

1. Short Title

This statute may be read as the Snails Offences Act.

2. Interpretation

In this act,"Snails" means Students not actually in law school"law school's facilities" and "premises" pertain to, but are not limited to, the C J Koh Law Library (henceforth known as "the library"), the air-conditioned area outside the library, the Law Classrooms, and the tables around the law faculty.

3. Definition of SNAILS

Any person who uses or abuses the premises of law school for his enjoyment without giving priority to Lawyers is a SNAIL.

Explanation
use and abuse includes, but is not limited to, studying, playing games, occupying space, squatting and is not limited to disruptive behaviour covered under s. 5 of this act.

Illustration 1

X is in arts but does not use the facilities of law school. X is not a snail.

Illustration 2

Y is a science student. Y walks past the law library, and enters through the main doors. Y is not a snail until she sits down on one of the chairs, after which she is a snail.

Illustration 3

Z is an engineer. Z sleeps in the law library and starts snoring; he is a snail and he is guilty of every offence in this act.

4. Infringing the personal right to enjoyment of Law School facilities
Any Snail who infringes upon the personal right of a lawyer to the enjoyment of law school's facilities, thus depriving him of the use of the facilities is guilty of an offence, subject to the following exceptions listed in s. 6 of this act.

Illustration
A is a lawyer, and leaves his belongings in a classroom for the sole purpose of reserving its use for his enjoyment. Another lawyer B is denied the use of the classroom. A, being a lawyer, is not guilty under this clause.

4A. Penalty for infringing right to enjoyment

The penalty for this offence is subject to the discretion and pleasure of any lawyer whose right is infringed by that snail.

5. Disruptive Behaviour of Snails

Disruptive behaviour is any conduct of a snail that reasonably causes a lawyer to lose concentration, his temper, or causes frustration, irrespective of whether the frustration was uncalled for or otherwise, while that snail is guilty of s. 4 of this act.

5A. Any Snail who exhibits disruptive behaviour while infringing the right of a lawyer is subject to the derision of any lawyer, and the discretion of any lawyer in the vicinity.

6. Exceptions

The red text in parentheses below have been severed as they are unconstitutional. However much i am against the severance.

No snail is guilty of an offence if (a) (that snail is a babe, and does not deny a lawyer access to use of facilites, or

(b) )that snail is a companion to any lawyer, subject to reasonableness

Illustration(a)
( Kristin Kreuk is in one of the classrooms. She allows any lawyer to enter and use the classroom and any article belonging to the classroom, up to and including the chair she might be sitting on. Kristin Kreuk is a Snail, but satisfies the requirements under exception 6(b) and she is not guilty of any offence under this act. For the purposes of this act, Kristin Kreuk is a babe.

(b) )Ronald McDonald and a lawyer walk into the library. Ronald McDonald's shoes are making alot of noise, disturbing the peace of every lawyer in the library. He is a snail and is guilty of an offence inasmuch as he is companion to the lawyer but did not satisfy the test of reasonableness.

APPENDIX B – QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY FOR LAW AND ARTS STUDENTS

Survey Questions (Arts)

*Disclaimer: Your identity will be kept confidential, so rest assured and be entirely honest!