{"id":156,"date":"2018-07-22T09:35:15","date_gmt":"2018-07-22T09:35:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/socp10.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=156"},"modified":"2018-12-28T12:17:04","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T12:17:04","slug":"gender-and-negotiation-of-spaces","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp10\/chapter\/gender-and-negotiation-of-spaces\/","title":{"rendered":"Gender and Negotiation of Spaces"},"content":{"raw":"
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nIntroduction<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

This module discusses about the contested nature of spaces. This discussion would initially start with developing an understanding about how spaces are constructed and later would analyse how spaces are contested. Through this analysis the aim would be to highlight that everyone one of us, in context of our identity, location and perception by society, occupy spaces differently. As discussed in detail in the module on Gendered Citizenship1, our rights are differentiated and contested we need to recognize that our spaces too are differentiated and contested. Not everyone one of us is considered to be \u2018full legitimate citizens\u2019; groups such as minorities, immigrants, poor, people with alternative sexualities, sex workers are considered different, and evoke a feeling of difference. These different processes of \u2018othering\u2019, limit the usage of spaces. These groups, in their everyday lives, have to deal to stigma, violence, and harassment, oppression to use the spaces and experience their rights.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In this module, based on the analysis of the two different groups who have to deal everyday within the public spaces, either as location of work or as general usage of space we would examine the negotiation and strategies developed by them. We would initially focus on how the sex workers who considered as marginal citizens deal with everyday violence, stigma and humiliation in the public spaces and then we would analyse how women deal with public transport system in their everyday life. The objective in this module is to focus on how groups negotiate the constricted spaces and how the spaces are not only gendered but are also organized around, structures of caste, class, ethnicity, normative sexuality and morality.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n

Certain groups of citizens, are pushed to the margins, because they are made to feel that these spaces does not \u2018belong\u2019 to them and they do not have any right to the space socially, culturally and in some cases morally. Though they may have political rights, the social, cultural and moral conventions do not allow them the rights to make use of the spaces freely. Though women and other marginal groups face issues of exclusion and violence on everyday basis as they negotiate\u00a0spaces in both public and private, in this module the focus is on negotiation in public spaces.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

In this module we shall focus on different ways women negotiate their spaces in public. This module is developed in three sections. The first section titled: Gender,<\/strong> Space and Negotiation <\/strong>where the discussion is based on interlinking gender, space and negotiation conceptually. This is followed by the next section titled Negotiation of Spaces: Sex Workers as Citizens of the Margins <\/strong>we would discuss the various strategies used by sex workers and examine how they negotiate with the spaces and how the spaces in turn push them to the margins. In the Section 3 titled, Security, Spaces and Segregation<\/strong> we shall evaluate how \u2018safe public spaces\u2019 are constructed for women in order to provide them secure \u2018spaces\u2019 within the larger insecure public spaces. In doing so we shall focus on Delhi Metro rail\u2019s special women\u2019s coach and platforms, and link it with the larger questions of accessibility, public transport and security in public spaces. This is followed by the conclusion.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nSection 1: Gender, Space and Negotiation<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Niranjana, drawing up on the work of Masey (1992: 70) argues that space is fundamentally a social construct. It is made by social relations and practices and that the spatial organization of society makes a difference to how spatial construction of social works (Niranjana, 2001:36). Thus the relations between temporal and spatial perspective should be studied (Niranjana, 2001:36) and the socio-spatial contexts enables a perspective on gender (and other social relations) as constructed and negotiated spatially and (as) embedded in the spatial organization of places (Duncan, 1996:4). This negotiation of spatial organization raises not only issues of identity, and belonging but also as to who are pushed to negotiate. The question is the process of negotiation similar for all or some groups are pushed to negotiate more even for their basic rights within these spaces.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n

As Thapan and Raoul (2010:1) argue, one needs to refer to the complex nature of \u2018belonging\u2019 to a space and a culture in contemporary times. There are dilemmas related to acceptance and exclusion experienced by individuals and groups in their everyday lives. They argue that we should recognize that the state, which accords citizenship by birth or naturalization, is not experienced by\u00a0migrant\/marginal inhabitants as impersonal and impartial. State has a recognizable presence in the lives of those who would be citizens (or in some case would rather have their own state) the spaces they inhabit belong to multitude of governing regimes, whether political, religious or social.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Thapan and Raoul (2010) further state that emotions also define our relationships with spaces and places. They are pushing the argument that as citizens our connection with the state is not only organized around the larger framework of legality, politics and conventions but also emotionally. There are groups who automatically belong in a national space- it is generally the majority and most often the male (of the majority) who are assumed to be \u2018authentic\u2019 citizens and legitimate occupants. There are groups whose citizenship is in question especially the minorities and immigrants, where the marginalization provokes personal, collective emotional and physical effects as well as legal, political and in some cases violent confrontations. Marginality may be experienced through differences based on gender, race, age, ability and social and economic status as well as religious and linguistic affiliations. We need to recognize that there are diverse ways in which the process of \u2018othering\u2019 takes place. Marginalized, deploy embodied and affective means to contest official boundaries and discourses, especially through space and time. The body can be effectively controlled by the state, as it literally excludes or restraints \u2013 perceived and may perceive themselves abject, rejected and denied value (Thapan and Raoul 2010).<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

Women in India and elsewhere clearly remain embedded in a dominant narrative of victimhood and dependence vis-\u00e0-vis the state and have yet to acquire full citizenship with equal voice, space and representation. Women thus often have been co-opted by the state to perpetuate their own oppression, marginalization and exclusion (pp 10-12). People in their everyday life have to negotiate, consciously or not with state control of their physical presence in contested spaces and cultural self-presentation (Thapan and Raoul 2010).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

As Niranjana (2001: 38), argues that a spatial perspective should analyse how gendered bodies are produced with spatiality and how such embodied persons negotiate their very social spaces. Further with regard to women, it is their bodily practices that are framed within certain cultural ideas of space. There is a need to focus on space and it's relation to body. Why? It is because body is a central material for discourses on gender and sexuality and the question as to how bodies\u00a0especially female bodies and (bodies at the margins of normative sexualities negotiate space) and how such spaces are defined, how space figures in the daily lives of women need to be analysed.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Thus we need to recognize that social spaces are marked, gendered and reworked, where women herself and others give importance to scriptures of morality as to define female identity. These scriptures may be differentially defined at any given point. (Niranjana, 2001:99). While relating to space and gender (Niranjana, 2001:108), the central idea revolves around women to the formation and continuation of the domestic space in the context of material contribution. The question arises how sexuality and impurity, auspiciousness and chastity are differentially enunciated within a given space (Niranjana, 2001:109). Public domain is associated with the exercise of power and control over persons and things, whereas the domestic is a subordinated space (Niranjana, 2001:110).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

What does then gender refers to? In broad terms, it refers to the social organization of differences between the sexes (Scott, 1986; Connell, 1987) and though gender is a constructed reality, the body is central to it's delineation (Niranjana, 2001:116). Then the question is how one shall start speaking of such a lived the 'materiality' of the body is question. Also the idea extends to how body as given or as somehow constructed. As it is argued that the 'grounding' of women (and men for that matter) as a biological category tends to essentialize gendered traits and do not recognize the differences among women themselves depending upon caste, class or kinship positions (Niranjana, 2001:119). To make sense of one\u2019s own body with the spaces and to negotiate with the perception and essentialization is challenging.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Section 2: Negotiation of Spaces: Sex Workers as Citizens of the Margins<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Agnes and Ghosh (2012) argues drawing from the experiences and actual struggles of women at the fringes of normative sexualities, that they negotiate, combat, slip, deal with complex networks of surveillance, censure and active violence and necessary conditions of their everyday lives (pg xiv). They negotiate the \u2018spaces\u2019- both in terms of citizenship and community rights as they lie outside the ambit of normative, familial, communal and citizenship boundaries, where women\u2019s claims to rights are not only bullied but also blocked (pp xiv-xv).<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

Thapan and Raoul (2010) further state that emotions also define our relationships with spaces and places. Seshu (2012), while discussing the experiences of women at the margins, raises the debate of sex work. Seshu argues that certain feminist argument that sex work as necessary objectification and exploitation of women, and violent- has according to her limited the understanding of it, as sex work also involves \u2018consent\u2019. According to Seshu, the issue of consent is complicated. Why? This is so because in sex work, while women give consent in order to sell their body, but they also experience rape (pp xv), which puts a question mark on the nature of \u2018consent\u2019. Further Sehsu also critiques the women\u2019s movement for not supporting any campaigns against rape of women in sex work. Such a critique of the women\u2019s movement, raises the question of the limited nature of the movement, where it does not always address the question of women in the margins or as Agnes and Ghosh, puts it the concerns of the \u2018women at the fringes of normative sexualities\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\nBased on the work of SANGRAM (Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha), Sangli Maharashtra, Seshu states that the issues that are crucial for the sex workers include:\r\n\r\n \r\n

-\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Questioning as to why health care needs are invariably structured around HIV\/AIDS<\/p>\r\n

-\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dealing with social stigma, where these women are considered shameless<\/p>\r\n

-\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Deal and face public violence on a day to day basis<\/p>\r\n

-\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Have to constantly negotiate for their rights- by dealing with police, local politicians and goons and also handling the law, lawyers and courts.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n

These women are always considered as \u2018less than full citizens\u2019, thus have to constantly negotiate the spaces that were more often than not unavailable to them. Sheshu (2012) states that the narratives of sex worker includes visions of the future of their children, struggle for their rights and dreams of love, life and dignity.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

According to Seshu (2012), in order to conceptualise the manner in which sex workers negotiate their spaces, both within their family and public, we need to change our perception of prostitution as exploitation, victimization, oppression, immoral and illegal is shallow and limited. Further we need to question the language used to describe the women who perform sex work- \u2018whore\u2019, \u2018harlot\u2019,\u00a0\u2018veshya\u2019 and \u2018fallen women\u2019, these words were not only derogatory but was rooted firmly in the realm of morality and notions of sacredness. The organization through its campaign made an attempt to reclaim the language and assert more positive identities of women engaging in sex work. The agenda was to erase and remove the words that reinforce stigmatization and marginalization. An option that is now being used is \u2018people in sex work\u2019 (PPS) so as to include all persons who as adults exchange consensual sexual services for benefit or money (pp 30).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

In the context of sex <\/span>work the sex worker reduces the female body to an object of sexual pleasure. As women are perceived to be upholders of societal norms, the society finds it challenging to accept any women who consensually engage in multiple sex partnerships. <\/span>Further the behavior of women usually was closely connected with concepts of 'shame' and '<\/span>honour'. While shame is 'individual' centered feeling, <\/span>honour is 'familial and organized around groups and community, with its reputations' hinged on it and therefore it is necessary to have institutionalized boundaries for women (Niranjana 2001), which I believe would control women.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

In this context Niranjana\u2019s argument that rules of spaces remind girls and women about proper behaviour and speech, where postures, dress and voice also has importance. For example, women are not encouraged to sit with legs spread. Why? I believe that this is so as it reflects \u2018uncontrolled sexuality\u2019, and further they cannot speak loudly to male, which I analyse as reflecting independence, overt sexuality and a desire to attract men, which is not encouraged among women, as mentioned above they represent the honour of the family, community and the nation at large. Thus it is the society and the community that decides how girl\/women should lead their lives (Niranjana, 2001:62).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Women are given a frame (this is designed in the context of caste, religion, or community that the women belongs to), and then women structures herself in the said frame and mould herself according to societal norms and values in order to achieve 'good character' defined by community itself. Here Chakravarthi\u2019s argument about the \u2018ideology of consent\u2019, is relevant, where women practice self control and restrict themselves, so as to be respected within the society. In this connection there seems to be a general consensus that early marriages are best so that the emergent female sexuality is not only controlled and channelized and\u00a0helps to guard and foster female chastity and virtue. Delay to send off a grown up girl to other home is considered damaging to the family's reputations, as it increases the chances of her becoming independent and take control of her life.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

In such a social cultural milieu sex worker represents a body that challenges the moral frame of reference institutionalized by the community. Within such a moral frame of <\/span>reference the sex worker is <\/span>organised within a strict patriarchal framework, thereby labeling her as immoral. It follows that these patriarchal norms and value structures seek to render female sexuality as invisible, and therefore those women who are confident and project an independent identity in terms of their sexual desires, such as the sex workers are labeled as <\/span>whore, immoral, decadent and debauched. Premarital sexuality is a taboo and procreation is culturally spaced and 'a good <\/span>women is one who prefers to stay at home only and shall not cross <\/span>boundary (Niranjana, 2001: 65). Sex workers who challenge moral boundaries, are out of the familial structures and are confident of their sexuality pose a moral aberration to the society.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

In the context of the community female sexuality then gains legitimacy only in the context of marriage and childbearing and therefore, divorced, unmarried, widows, deserted- single women are perceived negatively as they represent not only independence and but also are potential candidates for \u2018uncontrolled sexuality\u2019. The community and society has institutionalized \u2018legitimate sexuality\u2019; where sexual desires are to be expressed only with the institution of marriage and in the context of procreation. Therefore sex workers, who through consent engage in sexual activity, and are located on the margins of the institution of marriage challenge the patriarchal constructs of good women. Therefore such a framework pushes the sex worker to the margins where they have to negotiate socio-cultural spaces organized around norms of morality, stigma, shame, honour and patriarchal values. Thus sex work is considered problematic and unnatural as it not only projects independent sexuality of women, which challenges the \u2018bourgeois\u2019 notion of controlled sexuality but that women willingly offer her body as a service for monetary gain- shows women are judged by the society to be \u2018debased\u2019.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

What is interesting to note is that men operate under different values and normative structures. As Seshu (2012) argues what is problematic is that the same society while rejecting sexual independence among women, accepts and endorses\u00a0multiple sexual partnerships among male. Such double standards are structured within the frames of patriarchy that renders sex work a moral issue, where women are framed within binaries of \u2018good\u2019 and \u2018bad\u2019 women.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

The sex workers organized under Veshya Anyay Multi Parishad (VAMP), Sangli, challenge this moralistic position of the community. They state that they have to negotiate and deal with public perception of them as debased individuals on everyday basis and thus demand that there should be:<\/p>\r\n \r\n