“p”ublic the few, “P”ublic the many?

the desire to engage everyone, in terms of fulfilling Dijkstra’s description of public, seems unrealistic, by the nature that we are socially divided by very physical constraints ie. gender, race, income. (these of which may be altered as less commonly occurring examples.) might this suggest there exists a pedagogical rift in defining public, between Public’s necessary inclusion of everyone and all activities, versus an aggregate of smaller, less-all-encompassing publics? rather, could the second school offers at the very least and through the protection of public policy, its availability to be transformed as dependent upon the action of a citizen who may very well not feel welcomed.

perhaps this rift establishes “P”ublic and “p”ublic, regarding respective space potentialities. Could the discrimination of public spaces we find in familiar urban contexts support that these aren’t public “spaces” at all, but public “places.”