A Modest Inquiry into the Polyethylene Problem: Tarp-Based Territory Acquisition, Scarcity Mindsets, and the Communitarian Conundrum in Phishdom, with Sociological Side-Glances at the Affordable Housing Imbroglio

Abstract: More Than Just a Sheet Show

This disquisition revisits, with renewed academic vigour and an appropriately calibrated ironic lens, the perplexing phenomenon of “tarping” within the socio-cultural ecosystem of Phish concerts. While previous preliminary analyses have playfully invoked Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, acknowledging the inherent difficulty in simultaneously ascertaining the precise spatiotemporal coordinates of a strategically deployed polyethylene rectangle and the moral velocity of the Homo phanaticus (or “wook,” a term of art to be unpacked with ethnographic diligence) responsible for its unfurling, the present study ventures into deeper, murkier waters. It posits that this seemingly trivial act of claiming communal space for ostensibly private, albeit shared-with-crew, enjoyment serves as a potent, if ludicrously specific, microcosm of far graver societal dysfunctions. Chief among these is the intractable affordable housing crisis and the multifarious exclusionary mechanisms that perpetuate its societal sting.

We shall, therefore, explore the spatiotemporal dynamics of tarp-based territory acquisition not merely as a concert-going idiosyncrasy, nor as a simple expression of fan enthusiasm, but as a resonant, and often dissonant, echo of humanity’s most enduring, and frequently most exasperating, behavioral proclivities. The blue (or sometimes garishly patterned) tarp, in this analysis, becomes more than just a groundsheet; it transforms into a symbol, a contested territory, and a surprisingly revelatory prism through which to examine broader theories of property, power, scarcity, and the eternal, often Sisyphean, quest for a good spot.

I. The Ontological Crisis of Floor Space: Property, Primordial Urges, and Puddled Polyethylene

The very notion of claiming space, of drawing a line in the sand, or, in this case, on the often beer-sticky expanse of a general admission floor, plunges us into a philosophical quagmire as old as civil society itself. In 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia ostensibly established the modern concept of territorial sovereignty among nations. In the current annum, a Phish aficionado, let us call him “Chad from Boulder” (a purely archetypal designation, of course), might arrive at a venue at 2:47 PM for an 8:00 PM performance, unfurl his cerulean rectangle, and thereby establish his own micro-sovereignty over a patch of soon-to-be-sacred ground. Both events, in their vastly different scales, represent humanity’s perpetual, and often fraught, engagement with the question so piercingly posed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.

Rousseau, it must be noted, never had to contend for rail space at Dick’s Sporting Goods Park during a “Tweezer” encore.

This brings us to a central contention: that a fundamental human drive, perhaps our “greatest flaw,” is the unwavering, often ferocious, imperative to “protect what is theirs at all costs.” This possessiveness extends beyond mere chattels to encompass perceived entitlements, to an unobstructed view, to ample dancing room, to a particular quality of concert “experience,” to proximity to the perceived source of communal ecstasy.

The philosophical underpinnings of such claims, however flimsy they may appear when manifested as a 10x12 foot tarp, often unconsciously echo more formal theories of property. John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government, proposed that property rights legitimately arise when an individual mixes their labor with common resources.¹ Locke argued that when a person “hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own,” he “thereby makes it his property.” ² The Phish tarper, in a rather spectacular contortion of this principle, might argue that their “labor”, the hours spent shivering in a queue, the Herculean effort of unfolding a sheet of plastic, the strategic placement of Nalgene bottle anchors, justifies their claim. Yet, this “sweat equity” of the tarp deployment often conveniently overlooks Locke’s crucial proviso: that such appropriation is permissible only if “there is enough, and as good, left in common for others”.² On a sold-out floor, as the gates open and the great land rush begins, this proviso is often the first casualty. The tarper’s claim becomes a “unilateral account” of appropriation, not dependent on community consent,¹ but on the sheer audacity of the claim itself and the passive acquiescence (or weary resignation) of fellow concert-goers. This perversion of Lockean thought transforms a theory of earned ownership into a justification for disproportionate spatial conquest, fueled by little more than early arrival and a robust sense of entitlement.

This drive is powerfully amplified by the psychology of scarcity. The general admission floor, particularly the coveted areas near the stage or soundboard, becomes a zone of intensely perceived scarcity; “good spots” are, by definition, limited.³ This triggers what psychologists Eldar Shafir and Sendhil Mullainathan term a “scarcity mindset,” which consumes “mental bandwidth” and leads to “tunneling”.⁴ Fans begin to “tunnel” on the acquisition and defense of space, their cognitive resources almost entirely devoted to this micro-struggle for spatial dominance, often at the expense of broader, more communal considerations.⁵ The tarp, then, is not merely a piece of plastic; it is a hoarded resource, a tangible manifestation of the fear of not having enough.⁶ This scarcity-driven tunnel vision, where individuals focus on immediate needs and overlook long-term or collective consequences,⁷ bears a discomforting resemblance to other societal phenomena where individual perceived benefit trumps collective well-being. The tarper, laser-focused on securing their “optimal” experience, may inadvertently diminish the experience of many others, much like individuals who, fearing a scarcity of absolute personal safety, might make choices that compromise broader public health. The very act of maintaining this claimed territory, the constant vigilance against encroachers, the subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) negotiations of boundaries, the psychic energy expended in fending off “tarp-crashers”, imposes a significant “bandwidth tax”.⁴ This cognitive load, ironically, may detract from the very enjoyment the tarper sought to maximize, transforming a quest for bliss into an exercise in anxious territorial defense, and perhaps explaining the intensity and occasional aggression reported by many observers.⁸

Michel Foucault might describe the Phish floor as a “heterotopia”, a space of otherness where normal rules dissolve, much like a perfectly executed transition jam between “Disease” and “Twist”. Here, conventional social norms regarding personal space and public property are suspended, or at least severely distorted. Time, as noted, seems to flow in reverse: the earlier one arrives, the “closer” one gets to the future event. Property rights become hilariously fluid and fiercely contested. Is a tarp a legitimate claim, a mere suggestion, or an outright provocation? Anecdotal evidence abounds, painting a picture of this heterotopic space: tales of “aggressive enforcement” of tarp boundaries, of fans being “physically pushed and screamed at for trying to stand at the very back” of a claimed zone,⁸ of passive-aggressive glances escalating into verbal altercations over a few square feet of polyethylene.⁸

In such an environment, one might even argue that the floor temporarily regresses to a Hobbesian state of nature, a “war of all against all,” albeit one conducted with more tie-dye and (usually) fewer actual weapons.⁹ Thomas Hobbes posited that in the absence of an overarching authority, individuals possess a “right of nature” to preserve themselves and pursue their interests, leading inevitably to conflict, especially over scarce resources.⁹ The GA floor, particularly if the band and venue adopt a laissez-faire attitude towards its regulation (a point of contention itself), can become such a state. Each tarper, or tarping crew, acts as a sovereign entity, judging their own spatial needs and “enforcing” their claims through presence, social pressure, or, in extreme cases, confrontation.⁸ The “competition for resources”⁹ is palpable. This state of affairs represents a kind of failed social contract formation. Whereas Hobbes argued that rational individuals consent to a social contract and submit to a sovereign to escape the perils of the state of nature,¹⁰ tarping often emerges not as a mutually agreed-upon system for equitable space-sharing, but as an imposition of will by a determined few. This leads not to peace and order, but to resentment, simmering conflict, and a fragmented common experience.¹¹ The GA floor, lacking a consistently recognized “regional arbiter” with the legitimacy to enforce equitable rules, thus becomes a fascinating, if frustrating, laboratory for observing the challenges of self-governance in the face of competing individual desires.

II. The Invisible Hand Gives Everyone the Finger: Tarping, Zoning, and the Economics of Exclusion

Adam Smith, that venerable sage of classical economics, famously proposed that individual self-interest, guided by an “invisible hand,” could inadvertently lead to collective benefit. Smith, it is safe to say, never witnessed the 5:30 PM tarp rush at a Phish festival. In this peculiar arena, individual self-interest, far from producing a harmonious outcome, often culminates in what economists might term a “Pareto inferior equilibrium”, a situation where almost everyone (save for the most spatially dominant tarp-lords) would be better off if they all cooperated (i.e., didn’t aggressively tarp), but no single individual has an incentive to be the first to “disarm” their polyethylene defenses. The result is a dystopian blanket wasteland: less overall dance space, heightened interpersonal tension, obstructed sightlines for those relegated to the tarp-shadows, and a general miasma of un-Phishy vibes.

This concert-specific psychodrama, however, serves as a surprisingly apt, if absurdly scaled, analogy for a far more consequential societal ill: the affordable housing crisis. The mechanisms by which a few strategically placed tarps can transform a joyous communal space into a patchwork of jealously guarded fiefdoms bear an uncanny resemblance to the ways exclusionary zoning policies have, over decades, restricted housing supply and exacerbated inequality in our cities and suburbs.

The economics of exclusionary zoning are well-documented. Historically, such policies emerged in the early 20th century, sometimes with explicitly racist intent, such as Baltimore’s 1910 ordinance segregating neighborhoods by race.¹² While landmark cases like Buchanan v. Warley (1917) struck down overtly racial zoning, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 prohibited racial discrimination, a crucial loophole remained: the Act “did not prohibit discrimination on the basis of class”.¹² This paved the way for more subtle, economically-driven forms of exclusion, such as minimum lot size requirements and single-family zoning ordinances, which effectively prevent the construction of more affordable, multi-family housing in desirable areas. The Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977) case further entrenched this by ruling that discriminatory effect was not unconstitutional if discriminatory intent could not be proven,¹² a precedent that resonates with tarpers who might claim their actions are merely about securing personal space, despite the exclusionary impact on others.

These zoning tactics, much like tarping strategies, are often driven by the desire of “incumbent landowners” (or, on the floor, “incumbent tarp-owners”) to protect and enhance their “property values” (or the quality of their concert experience) by restricting supply.¹³ Small local governments, beholden to these incumbent interests, enact policies that benefit a select few at the great expense of the wider community seeking entry.¹⁴ The battle cries of NIMBYs (“Not In My Back Yard”)¹⁵ find their echo in the defiant stance of the tarper defending their dance space (“Not In My Dance Space” or “NIMDS,” perhaps). While the historical racial injustices of redlining and discriminatory FHA practices¹⁶ are of a profoundly different moral order, the mechanisms of exclusion, creating artificial scarcity to benefit an in-group, offer a chilling, if satirical, parallel to the dynamics observed on the concert floor.

To make this analogy more explicit, consider the following Zoning-Tarping Equivalence Matrix:

This matrix illuminates how similar patterns of resource control and exclusion manifest in vastly different arenas, driven by a common desire to secure advantage through the limitation of access for others.

The “Tarpist’s Dilemma,” is a classic iteration of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, a scenario where individual decision-makers, acting rationally in their own self-interest, collectively produce a suboptimal outcome.¹⁷ The GA floor is a common pool resource, akin to fisheries or grazing lands, susceptible to the “Tragedy of the Commons”.¹⁸ Each fan could cooperate by taking only the space they physically occupy, leading to a “dancing utopia.” However, the temptation to “defect” by laying down a large tarp is strong, particularly if one fears that others will do the same (“use it or lose it” mentality¹⁸). This is especially true in a non-cooperative game setting, which largely characterizes the initial floor grab.¹⁹

Phish shows, for many attendees, constitute an “iterative prisoner’s dilemma”²⁰; the same players encounter each other repeatedly. This can lead to the formation of reputations and more complex strategies. “Tarp crews,” for instance, can be seen as “tarp cartels”, groups that cooperate internally to secure a large territory, acting as a unified defecting bloc against outsiders or other crews. This is an emergent property of the “GA floor game” when played repeatedly, explaining the entrenched nature of some large tarp sections and the difficulty lone individuals face in challenging them.⁸ The band’s and venue’s general silence or ambiguous stance on tarping²¹ acts as a crucial game parameter. This lack of clear, enforced rules creates a power vacuum that allows the Tarpist’s Dilemma to play out in its most frustrating form, effectively sanctioning the behavior that many decry. The rare instance of an anti-tarp rule, such as for the concert field at the cancelled Curveball festival,²² only highlights its conspicuous absence at most other shows.

III. The Phenomenology of Proximity and the Psyche of the Phan: From Kierkegaard to the Cult of Trey

Beyond the socio-economic parallels, the drive to tarp, particularly to secure a spot perilously close to the stage, delves into the deeper recesses of the fan psyche. Søren Kierkegaard wrote of the “sickness unto death”, the despair born from the inability to truly be oneself or to escape oneself. The dedicated rail-chaser, experiences the “sickness unto Trey”, an existential angst stemming from the paradoxical truth that no matter how close one gets to the stage, one is still, fundamentally, not on it. This yearning for proximity, for a perceived unmediated connection, can manifest as a form of Buddhist dukkha, or suffering through attachment, attachment to a specific patch of floor, to an idealized concert experience, to the ephemeral sensation of being mere feet from the musical alchemy.

This intense desire is often intertwined with what can only be described, with a respectful nod to sociological nuance, as the “Cult of Phish.” For a significant segment of the fanbase, Phish transcends mere entertainment; it assumes a role akin to that of organized religion or profound spiritual practice. This is not always mere hyperbole. As documented, some Jewish Phish fans find shows to be “alternate sites of Jewish cultural and spiritual connection,” with observant Jews gathering for a minyan during set break, and the band’s occasional performance of “Avinu Malkeinu” described as a “powerful and meaningful Jewish experience”.²³ The Phish experience, for these individuals, offers “innovative rituals, building community and engaging with and producing Jewish culture” outside traditional institutional frameworks.²³

However, this deep, often genuine, spiritual connection can also shade into behaviors that, from an external sociological perspective, exhibit characteristics associated with high-demand groups or even “new religious movements” (NRMs). Sociologists have long grappled with classifying such movements, using typologies like church, sect, cult, and denomination.²⁴ A “sect” is often a break-away group, in tension with mainstream society, seeking more authentic experiences, while a “cult” (a term now often laden with negative connotations but used here in its more neutral sociological sense) might feature novel teachings and charismatic leadership.²⁴ One could playfully argue that Phish fandom, with its esoteric knowledge (the Helping Friendly Book, Gamehendge lore), its charismatic figures (the band members), its distinct argot, and its emphasis on transformative communal experience, shares certain features with these sociological categories. The intense loyalty and the “us vs. them” mentality that can sometimes arise, pitting “true phans” against casual observers or even against other factions within the fandom, are common in groups with strong collective identities.

This intense devotion often manifests in “devotion signaling”, public displays of commitment and loyalty. In some online fandoms, this can involve dedicating “unrestricted amounts of time and money” or aggressively defending idols.²⁵ For sports fans, showcasing “niche knowledge” or demonstrating “constant devotion” serves a similar purpose.²⁶ Within the Phish community, the lengths to which some fans will go to secure and defend prime tarp space can be interpreted as a potent form of devotion signaling. The hours spent in line, the logistical planning for multi-day festival tarp campaigns, the willingness to engage in territorial disputes, all these can be seen as “performances” of superior dedication. The tarp itself becomes a ritual object, its deployment a “Ritual of Conspicuous Devotion,” publicly testifying to one’s commitment and status within the fan hierarchy. This competition for proximity, for being invited to Phish’s hypothetical last supper, is a spatial enactment of this devotion hierarchy.

This dynamic is further reinforced by “in-group favoritism,” a well-documented cognitive bias where individuals prefer and view members of their own social group more positively, while often overlooking faults and attributing negative traits to out-group members.²⁷ This bias stems from a natural human inclination to belong and to derive self-esteem from group membership.²⁸ Tarp crews are quintessential examples of in-group formation. They share their claimed space primarily with “their own,” viewing encroachers (the out-group) with suspicion or hostility. The tarp physically demarcates the boundary between the “chosen few” within and the undifferentiated mass without. Aggressive defense of these boundaries⁸ is a form of in-group boundary maintenance, ensuring that only those deemed “worthy” (i.e., fellow crew members or those who understand and respect the unspoken tarp protocols) are admitted to the privileged zone. Figures like the notorious “Antelope Greg,” said to mark out his territory with duct tape and verbally accost interlopers,⁸ become legendary (or infamous) embodiments of this extreme devotion and territoriality, reinforcing the “us vs. them” narrative that can characterize intense fan subcultures.

Amidst this complex interplay of individual desire and group dynamics, the band’s official stance on tarping, or, more accurately, its conspicuous lack thereof, becomes a significant factor. Is their silence a deliberate attempt to recreate a “classic” free-for-all concert experience, an admission of the logistical nightmare of enforcement, or, more cynically, a calculation that benefits their bottom line? While Phish’s PR firm has declined to comment on the matter, the band did notably forbid tarps on the concert field for their planned (but ultimately cancelled due to flooding) Curveball festival.²² This crucial detail demonstrates that the band can and does implement such rules when they deem it necessary, making their general silence at regular shows all the more puzzling and frustrating for many fans.²¹ This ambiguity fuels endless debate and allows the “tarp problem” to persist. One might term this approach a form of “Benevolent Neglect” in floor management. Perhaps the band adheres to a jam-band ethos of community self-regulation.²⁹ However, as game theory and the Tragedy of the Commons illustrate, self-regulation in a shared resource environment often fails without clear rules or enforcement. This “neglect,” however well-intentioned, inadvertently allows the Tarpist’s Dilemma to flourish, creating the very tensions and conflicts that many fans find antithetical to the Phish spirit. The satire lies in the juxtaposition of the espoused ideals of peace, love, and communal joy with the often-aggressive, individualistic reality of the GA floor.

IV. The Teleportation Solution: A Modest Proposal for Quantum Crowd Re-Spatialization (Now with Enhanced Technobabble!)

Given the seemingly intractable nature of the Polyethylene Problem, and humanity’s endearing penchant for seeking technological panaceas for complex social ills, one cannot help but be drawn to more… inventive solutions. The initial proposal for Crowd Randomization via Instantaneous Nano-Teleportation (CRINT), ensuring Heisenbergian fairness (wherein one cannot simultaneously know both where one is AND where one is going, at least until the drop of the next jam), offers a tantalizing glimpse into a tarp-free future.

The best hope we may have is a spatial algorithm that randomly teleports you and your crew to a different spot on the floor for each song, with teleporters ingeniously designed in such a way that you can’t take your tarp with you, merits further, deeply serious consideration. Drawing inspiration from the grand tradition of scientific obfuscation, exemplified by such marvels as the “Turbo Encabulator”³⁰ and the boundless creativity of online technobabble generators,³¹ we can begin to sketch the schematics for this Phish-topic specific marvel.

The spatial algorithm itself would undoubtedly rely on multi-dimensional topographical analyses of expected groove vectors, dynamically cross-referenced with predictive funk-tuation matrices. Its core processing would be handled by a networked array of “Kasvot Växtian Null-Entropy Compensators,” ensuring that the randomization process adheres to the fundamental principles of jam-based stochasticity. The “tarp-proof teleporters” might operate on principles of “selective matter de-cohesion,” specifically calibrated by “Reba-Rtuned Resonant Frequency Modulators” to ignore non-sentient, low-vibing polyethylene sheets while translocating organic, ticket-holding, and hopefully blissed-out lifeforms. An alternative, currently under investigation by NASA, involves inducing “localized chroniton field distortions that render conventional tarp-anchoring methodologies (e.g., Nalgene bottles, Birkenstocks, passed-out companions) entirely ineffective against the trans-dimensional shift.” A key component, of course, would be the “Antelope Greg Anti-Gravitational Tarp Repulsor,” a device of sublime elegance and pinpoint accuracy.

A preliminary feasibility study, conducted under simulated festival conditions (i.e., in a very crowded university common room with a Phish live stream playing at high volume), has yielded promising results. “Initial trials at a simulated Gorge Amphitheatre camping scenario indicate a 73.4% reduction in pre-show territorial anxiety,” one report notes, “though a statistically significant 15% increase in post-teleportation disorientation was observed, often manifesting as an urgent, existentially tinged need to ask, ‘Is this still Lawn Boy? And where are my shoes?’”

Further research is clearly needed. “Challenges remain,” another progress update confesses, “in ensuring the quantum integrity of glowstick-based personal auric fields during psycho-spatial tunneling. Early prototypes occasionally resulted in subjects arriving at their new coordinates with their glowsticks inexplicably and intricately woven into their, or their neighbor’s, dreadlocks.” The user’s estimate that such technology is “2-3 years off” can be justified by citing “ongoing challenges in calibrating the Llama-boson particle streams for optimal dance-floor dispersion” or “unforeseen interference from residual Gamehendge chronometric energy signatures.”

The profound allure of such a technocratic solution lies in its promise to neatly sidestep the messy, intractable realities of human behavior. Why engage in difficult conversations about sharing, community, and the ethics of space when we can simply invent a machine to shuffle everyone around until the problem, quite literally, dematerializes….

The elaborate technobabble serves to highlight the absurdity of applying such high-tech, Rube Goldberg-esque solutions to what is, at its heart, a failure of social grace and communal spirit. It is a gentle ribbing of our collective tendency to dream of complex technological interventions rather than undertake the more arduous, less glamorous work of fostering better human interactions and more equitable social norms. Until the successful deployment of the PhishPhlux Crowd Randomizer (patent pending, naturally), we are, alas, stuck with the tarps.

V. Conclusion: The Sisyphean Tarp, Regional Governance, and the Search for Floor-vana

Albert Camus famously argued that we must imagine Sisyphus happy, forever rolling his boulder up the mountain, finding meaning in the absurd struggle itself. One might, with similar existential charity, attempt to imagine the dedicated tarper happy, forever arriving hours early, meticulously unfurling their plastic, and defending their hard-won square footage, show after show, tour after tour. Is this a joyful affirmation of fan dedication, or a compulsion born from a scarcity-driven anxiety⁴ and an insatiable need for devotion signaling?²⁵ The answer, like a particularly exploratory Phish jam, remains open to interpretation.

Jean-Paul Sartre’s concept of “bad faith” also finds fertile ground on the GA floor. The tarper who insists they are merely securing a “reasonable” amount of space for their crew, all while pretending their expansive claim doesn’t negatively impact the dozens forced to cram around them or peer over their barricade, is engaging in a classic form of self-deception. They know, on some level, the exclusionary effect of their actions, yet they maintain the fiction of their own considerateness.

The parallels drawn throughout this treatise between the micro-politics of Phish floor space and the macro-politics of affordable housing are not intended to trivialize the latter, but to illuminate common underlying human tendencies. A likely solution to the affordable housing crisis might involve replacing small, parochial local governments with regional, metro-level bodies, making decisions to benefit a wider populace, has its satirical counterpart in Phishlandia. One could envision a “Phishlandia Floor Governance Board,” composed of elected representatives from various fan demographics, the “Ancient Order of Rail Riders,” the “Benevolent Society of Mid-Floor Shufflers,” the “Federated Union of Back-of-the-Room Spinners,” and perhaps even a delegate from the “League of Utterly Confused Newcomers.” This august body would be tasked with formulating and enforcing equitable floor space allocation policies. The resulting bureaucratic wrangling, filibusters during “You Enjoy Myself,” and accusations of selling out to “Big Tarp” would, no doubt, mirror the delightful complexities of real-world governance, and likely prove equally effective.

The aphorism ’the real Floor was the friends we made along the way,’ which a wise friend once uttered amidst a burst of anger over tarping, is certainly aspirational. Yet, one must ask: did those friends bring a tarp? And if so, how big was it, and were you allowed on it? Community, indeed, is paramount in the Phish experience. But that very sense of community is often tested, and sometimes fractured, by the internal competition for a scarce and highly valued resource: an unobstructed, danceable patch of ground from which to witness the four-headed musical hydra weave its magic. The friendships may be genuine, the collective effervescence undeniable, but so too is the primal urge for an unimpeded view of Trey Anastasio’s expressive guitar faces.

Ultimately, the humble polyethylene tarp, in all its mundane utility and symbolic weight, serves as a surprisingly effective window into the human condition. It reflects our ingenuity (in advanced space-claiming techniques), our deep-seated territoriality (often masquerading as a need for “dance space”), our yearning for transcendent communal experiences (the promise of every Phish show), and our simultaneous, often frustrating, propensity for petty squabbles and self-serving behavior. The blue tarp becomes a canvas upon which are painted both our highest aspirations for shared joy and our most exasperating limitations rooted in individual desire.

This entire exploration, from Lockean property theory¹ to the Tarpist’s Dilemma,¹⁷ and from the sociology of new religious movements²⁴ to the economics of exclusionary zoning,¹² ultimately circles back to an inescapable tension: the conflict between the pursuit of an optimal individual experience and the fostering of the collective good. The Phish concert floor is a vibrant, pulsating laboratory where this tension plays out with remarkable intensity. Fans often seek an experience characterized by freedom, spontaneity, and a letting go of inhibitions. Yet, the act of tarping is fundamentally about imposing control, demarcating boundaries, and enacting exclusion within that very environment. This paradox, seeking liberation through acts of control, is perhaps the most telling aspect of the phenomenon. It speaks to a fear, often born of a scarcity mindset,⁴ that without such preemptive measures, one’s experience will be diminished. Until the advent of quantum teleportation or a collective evolution in concert-going consciousness, we are left to navigate this fundamental human dilemma, often imperfectly, sometimes acrimoniously, and always, it seems, with a surplus of tarps.

About the author

John Maynard Chainz is the tongue-in-cheek alter-ego of a real-life urban economist and former professor who has spent the past decade disentangling the knot of zoning regulation, land-use politics, and America’s affordable-housing shortfall. Behind the satirical nom de plume stands a scholar whose peer-reviewed work on exclusionary ordinances and regional governance has informed city councils, housing advocates, and the occasional irate NIMBY.

When the spreadsheets close, Chainz turns theory into art. He is the librettist-composer of “Liberation Day! A Trade-War Opera in Real Time,” an unreleased stage work charting tariffs, tantrums, and global value chains, and the songwriter behind “Tenure My Ass, Pass the Flask,” an anti-institutional country album that translates academic angst into twang. In A Modest Inquiry into the Polyethylene Problem he slips on the Chainz persona once more, treating tarp turf wars at Phish shows as a mischievous microcosm of the very housing dilemmas he studies for a living.

VI. References:

1. Camus, A. (1942). Le Mythe de Sisyphe (et la Bâche Éternelle). Gallimard.
2. Chomsky, N. (2019). “Manufacturing Consent in the Pit: Media, Propaganda, and the Political Economy of Tarp Space.” Journal of Rail Rider Hegemony.
3. Descartes, R. (1637). “Discours de la Méthode (Pour Bien Conduire Sa Raison, et Chercher la Vérité Dans les Sciences, et les Meilleurs Emplacements de Bâche).” Translated as: “I Tarp, Therefore I Am.”
4. Foucault, M. (1967). Des Espaces Autres (et des Bâches Bleues): Une Étude sur les Hétérotopies du Plancher GA. Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité.
5. Hardin, G. (1968). “The Tragedy of the Commons (Section): A Preliminary Report on Unregulated Floor Space at Rock Concerts.” Journal of Applied Wook Studies, 12(3), 245-261.
6. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil (and How it Applies to People Who Stand Too Close at Shows, Verily). Andrew Crooke.
7. Kierkegaard, S. (1849). Sygdommen til Døden (The Sickness Unto Death, Potentially by Glowstick Impalement in an Overcrowded Pit). C.A. Reitzel.
8. Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government (And One Small Blue Tarp, Sufficient for Oneself and Perhaps a Companion, Provided Enough and As Good is Left for Others, Which is Debatable). Awnsham Churchill.
9. Mullainathan, S. & Shafir, E. (2024). Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Tarp Space Impairs Cognitive Function, Reduces Executive Control, and Leads to Poor Life Choices (Like Yelling at Strangers About Perceived Encroachments). Princeton University Press (in association with the WaterWheel Foundation).
10. Ross, Rick Alan. (2024). Cults in Our Midst (And On Our Tarps): A Study of High-Demand Devotional Fan Groups and Their Spatial Negotiation Tactics. Cult Education Institute Press.
11. Rothstein, R. (2017). The Color of Lawn (Chairs): How Government, Venue Policies, and Fan Practices Segregated America’s Concert Venues. Liveright.
12. Rousseau, J.J. (1762). Du Contrat Social (ou Principes du Droit de la Bâche). Marc-Michel Rey.
13. Sartre, J.P. (1943). L’Être et le Néant (et la Mauvaise Foi du Tarper “Considéré”). Gallimard.
14. Shafir, E. & Mullainathan, S. (2013). Scarcity: The New Science of Having Less and How It Defines Our Lives (Especially When Trying to Find Space for a Reusable Water Bottle Next to Someone Else’s Cooler). Picador.
15. Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (And Why It Doesn’t Apply When Everyone Rushes the Rail Simultaneously, Thereby Diminishing the Overall Utility of the Experience). W. Strahan and T. Cadell.
16. Sumner, W.G. (1906). Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals (Including the Strange Mores of Tarp-Laying Subcultures and Their Ritualistic Boundary Disputes). Ginn and Company.
17. Tajfel, H. (1970). “Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination (Between Those Who Tarp and Those Who Do Not, and the Subsequent Allocation of Dance Space).” Scientific Phanerican, 223(5), 96-102.
18. Troeltsch, E. (1912). Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen (The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches and Its Surprising Relevance to Phish Phan Typologies, Particularly Regarding Sectarian Exclusivity and Charismatic Authority). Mohr Siebeck.
19. Žižek, S. (2023). “The Sublime Object of Ideology and Other Things I Yelled About During Carini Because Someone Stepped on the Corner of My Metaphysically Significant Ground Cover.” International Journal of Psychoanalysis and Polyethylene Studies.

Works cited