Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
By
Saurabh Pant
And
Shilpa Phadke
Gender has been aultering in great discussions due to recent activities of violence, disturbances and hatred
towards Feminism which hasn't been a bait altogether. Such hatred with psychological atributes in men
has created a coincidence which makes most of feminist think that only Men are responsible for whatever
social disturbances has occured in recent times. But, Are these all fancies occuring because of the hatred
in men or they have something to do with the Women as well? Are men only accused or they are the real
diluted masks spreading the violence to which they are vulnerablly associated in the present days?
The shartp scholar and prominent feminist from Mumbai known as Madam Shilpa Phadke has been one
of most prominent faces in the field of speaking the quest to find out the real mask of this feminine abuse
and she will take us through in her own way to explain the events of past which are all done by men
against women for their social hunger and greed. i was very lucky to spend some time with her and
discuss some valuable key points of Gender debates through which The results were drawn out that not all
the time Men are the first committed attackers, But in most cases they are equally responsible for the
violence happening against the Women in our country and abroad.
She is a distinguished scholar in his field and she explained to me the judgmentel suspect of the current
society also where no family or society want to separate from gender politics which helps us to conclude
that without Gender mascaration it is very hard to live in the present society and which is also an absolute
disgust to the complete aspect of survival and the quest. It is not analysed in our current popularity how
hard we have worked for our identity, But it is judged by the crime or clearity of the gender relations in
our prospect that how far we shall go and even the bigger communities reward also those who have done
great to protect or criticise the gender question which finally helps us to ponder that in how shrewd way
this whole quest to gender discrimination has led to a horrible conclusion in our social norms.
Altogether, it must be understood that she is a woman herself and she has analysed these views of
violence by the perspective of the Feminist perspective, Yet it must be essential to understand in the
prospect of the work and it's process of whole editing being an anilytical effort that to what level the
thoughts are analysed against men and to what level men has been violating the identity of the Women in
the present world. There is a significant research done in this field but here it shall be done by the
prospect of social and cultural prospect which I am sure will make this duel effort a unique one...
writers' introduction
Shilpa Phadke (shilpa@tiss.edu) teaches at the School of Media and
Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
Following sexual assaults on women in public spaces in
cities, discussions tend to frame the issue in terms of
womens safety in the streets rather than their right to
access public space. The overarching narrative appears
to be that cities are violent spaces that women are better
off not accessing at all. This paper attempts to make a
case for women and others accessing a city which is
perceived as hostile, and to do so without being
censured. It argues that loitering offers the possibility of
rewriting the city as a more inclusive, diverse and
pleasurable one.
introduction
On 22 August 2013 fi ve men gang-raped a young photojournalist
in the dilapidated Shakti Mills premises in
Mumbai. It immediately set off discussions in news
features, blogs and broadcast news about how dangerous the
city had become and how womens mobility was going to be
further restricted. The question of unfriendly space assumed
centre stage when in New Delhi fi ve men brutally raped and
assaulted a young physiotherapy student in a bus and beat up
her male friend before throwing them off the vehicle on
16 December last year. Thousands protested against the incident
on the streets of Delhi and other cities. These protesters
demanded better infrastructure, more effi cient policing, and
more stringent punishment for the rapists. It is the question of
womens safety on the streets that frames this discussion rather
than any concern with womens right to access public space.
The question of making streets safer for women is not an
easy one, because the discourse of safety is not an inclusive
one and tends to divide people into us and them tacitly
sanctioning violence against them in order to protect us
(Phadke et al 2009). This is endorsed by the wide reportage of
any sexual assault that involves lower class men attacking
middle class women. In comparison, upper and middle class
perpetrators of sexual violence get off easily. So also when
lower class, dalit or tribal women are sexually assaulted the
media barely covers these attacks and there is little or no
public outrage.
access in society
feminist activists, particularly those who work with young
women, we have been challenged several times on the grounds
that everyone loitering includes even those others (often
young men) who intimidate young women and inhibit their
access, thus in fact restricting their mobility.
In this paper I attempt to think through questions of justice
in access to public space. It is unnecessary to point out that
men have more access than women, the rich have more access
than the poor or indeed that the very aspiration of becoming a
global city is based on the exclusion of those who do not fi t
in. I will attempt both to respond to the very real questions
raised by feminist activists in relation to loitering as well as
locate them in a context where public spaces are shrinking
for everyone.
The first section traces competing claims to public space in
cities. The second section focuses on the idea of the unfriendly
body asking why some bodies are considered more unfriendly
than others. The third section asks the question: what makes
for friendly/unfriendly cities? Using the illustrative cases of
Singapore and Mumbai it refl ects on the trade-off between
safety and loitering. The fourth section engages the desire to
access the city despite its hostility.
This paper engages multiple questions: What does it mean
to stake an equal claim for all to loiter in public space? How
does one engage with the threat posed by one group of such
loiterers to another potential group of loiterers? How does one
understand claim staking in a context where city public spaces
are surveillanced and policed? What are the claims of different
kinds of bodies and how can we arrive at an idea of justice
that at least attempts to address the claims of as many different
groups as possible? In thinking through the notion of
unfriendliness of bodies, spaces and cities, I attempt to make
a case for women and others to make choices to access a city
which is perceived as hostile without being censured for it
and to continue an argument on why loitering offers the
possibility of rewriting the city as a more inclusive, diverse
and pleasurable city.
1 Competing Claims to Public Space
Introduction
The post-16 December Delhi protests focused on young men
and one saw a number of posters which exhorted us to teach
men not to rape. The fact that the perpetrators of the brutal
sexual assault leading to the death of the victim were a bus
driver, two cleaners, a fruit vendor and an assistant gym
instructor drew attention to lower class men in cities marking
them for surveillance. The unemployed status of the perpetrators
of the Mumbai attack will only endorse the need for
such surveillance.
Even as the protests raged, prime minister, Manmohan
Singh urged the police to increase surveillance of footloose
migrants.5 In Mumbai, migrants have long been seen as perpetrators
of violence.6 Parochial politicians have already raised
the outsiders bogey in response to the 22 August attack. This
kind of prejudiced representation is not new and is not restricted
to media reports. For instance, there is a particular
way in which lower class women and men are cast in particularly
development discourse since the 1970s the former as
potentially ideal subjects of development aid and the latter as
almost lost causes, men who are often violent, unemployed
and dominate women, refl ective of everything that is wrong
with developing countries. In these narratives of development,
almost unvaryingly men are cast as the problem and
women as the victims. These are also seen in the context of
narratives around microfi nance where women are seen as
good borrowers that is a good risk as opposed to men. This is
true not only in India but across the world.7
This vision of the lower-class man as an obstacle to
progress is one that is refl ected in the media as well.
Uma Chakravarti (2000) analyses a television serial titled
Naya Zamana (New World):
we have the full assemblage of stereotypes: the central character
naturally is a bai who is upright and tries to live honestly. Her husband
is a brutal male we have seen no poor upright men in a long time
who whiles away his time in a drunken stupor when he is not engaged
in beating his wife, or harassing his stepdaughter. ...Such images then
feed into middle class perspectives on poverty and morality which are
distributed in inverse proportion among the different classes; if the
poor are poor it is because the lower class male is so irresponsible
(p WS15).
women's exclusion
As I have argued elsewhere, the exclusion of women from
public space cannot be seen in isolation but is linked critically
to the exclusion of other marginal citizens. The person(s) who
are seen to pose the risk are men of a certain class and occupation
(or lack thereof). Safety for women then has become
increasingly about emptying the streets of other marginal citizens
deemed to be a threat to women. At the top of this list is
the lower-class male (also often unemployed, often lower caste
or Muslim), but sex workers, bar dancers and others seen to be
in need of surveillance also qualify. In this politics, both those
seen as the threat and those perceived to be in danger are rendered
illegitimate users of public space. I have argued that
their claims to public space are not competing but rather need
to be coterminous if they are to be successful (Phadke 2007).
introduction
It is villages and the countryside which are invoked in images
of tranquillity. Cities are often seen as spaces of noise, dust,
speed and worse, as locations of vice and violence. The city
then is the space of excitement rather than calmness, of risk
rather than safety.
In recent years cities across the world have developed policies
and committees in an attempt to protect themselves from
natural disasters and acts of human violence. In acknowledgement
of an ever present terror threat, in some cities there is a
constant assessment of risk and danger levels, especially at
airports and other such sites.8 This apparent danger, often
perceived as a danger to life, does not prevent people from
venturing out into public space in cities. In Mumbai, the relatively
high attendance at workplaces following terror attacks
or natural disasters has often been lauded and seen as a measure
of its resilience. So why is it that any perception of threat, even
unfriendliness, produces a range of effects that suggest women
should stay away from public space?9,10
Given that public space is classed, communalised and
caste(d) along with being gendered, how can we understand
the different modes of speech and the possibility of this being
seen (whether intended or unintended) as unfriendly
speech? At the same time, it is also worth refl ecting on young
men who are often seen in the discourse on safety as merely
undesirable bodies. What is it about unfriendly bodies that
makes it impossible for women to co-inhabit space with them?
Do women then never access spaces where there are unfriendly
bodies present?
What does it mean to be loitering or to even desire to loiter
in hostile cities with unfriendly speech/bodies present? What
are the consequences of suggesting those unfriendly bodies
should not be there? In this section I use the prism of the notion
of unfriendly bodies as a way of looking at questions of
hostility in public space. How does one understand the notion
of the unfriendly body? What are unfriendly bodies and to whom are they unfriendly? What are the
risks posed by a variety
of unfriendly bodies to each other and to the body of the
city itself? Who are the bodies who are a threat to the citybody?
And most relevantly in this case, does public space hold
the possibility for unfriendly bodies to coexist?
social perpitration
The social figure of the perpetrator of sexual harassment is
layered and complicated by a film produced by Askhara (a
womens resource centre) titled Jor Se Bol, an anti-street- sexual harassment
film. The documentary subverts the process of
othering since the filmmakers knew some of the men seen
hanging out at street corners in the documentary. This not only
immeasurably complicates our understanding of the male unfriendly
body but also places him firmly as an agential subject.
In a thoughtful blogpost on the Delhi gang rape, Kamayani
Sharma (2012) points out that as a middle-class young woman
who has migrated to one of the metropolises, she has had to
rely on strangers, men to help me find accommodation in the
least shady neighbourhoods, move into said accommodation,
repair my lavatory, fix sockets and bring me home in their rickshaws
and taxis at odd hours. She points out that all of these
men were working class and less educated. From the train
driver who scared off a drunken beggar hauling himself next
to me on the last Churchgate-Virar, the rickshaw driver who
asked me if I was sure about going alone down the dark path
that led to my room or the tempowala-turned-friend who
helped me bring home my refrigerator from the station after
midnight for free. This layered narrative complicates our
understanding of the urban lower-class male.
Another figure, strangely a fi gure of authority, the policeman
is also seen as an unfriendly body, especially after dark.
Young women often recount that they have been instructed to approach policemen on the street to ask for
directions or
any other kind of help. One young woman was told by her
father as she was learning to drive to never stop even if a cop
flagged her down. She was instructed that they would deal
with whatever problem it was later on but as a lone woman
driver, she should simply drive on. Stories of violence committed
by the police only buttress these narratives.
introduction
In 2008, along with my colleagues Shilpa Ranade and
Sameera Khan, I was invited to participate in the International
Symposium of Electronic Arts that was held in Singapore as
part of an artists-in-residence programme.17 In this section, I
refl ect on four short but intense weeks of living in and thinking
about loitering in Singapore in 2008 and juxtapose these
thoughts with our research in Mumbai.
As someone who grew up in a city that wanted to be Singapore,
the idea of the super clean city-state was part of my imagined
cityscape of the world. Arriving in Singapore, Ranade
and I were taken aback to arrive at a degree of comfort in
navigating and negotiating the city, its transport and its
idiosyncrasies within two days. Within another two days we
had our work in place. We were aided in the creation of part of
our installation by a group of students at the National University
of Singapore.
introduction
Streets are spaces where people make claims. Streets are also
spaces where these claims are shot down. Streets are spaces of
surveillance and spaces of fear. They are also spaces of excitement
and thrills. How might one imagine a street utopia, if
indeed such a thing exists? Or in other words, how might one
mobilise the varied dynamics of the street in the quest of a
more liberatory politics.
In the early 1960s urban writer Jane Jacobs wrote:
The tolerance, the room for great differences among neighbours differences
that often go far deeper than differences of colour are possible
and normal in intensely urban life, streets of great cities have
built-in equipment allowing strangers to dwell in peace together on
civilised but essentially dignifi ed and reserved terms, lowly, unpurposeful
and random as they may appear, sidewalk contacts are the
small change from which a citys wealth of public life may grow
(Jacobs 1961).
The question then is how can one foster tolerance and coexistence
even in the presence of such hostility or fear? Would
the presence of (other) friendly or even neutral bodies allow
for a mutual coexistence? What kinds of spaces would enable
friendly bodies to act in solidarity? One of the factors that set
Mumbai apart from other megacities in India is the lack of
planning and concomitant separation of function. The lack of
formal order which often emanates from zoning is what allows
for a more varied interaction in public space. This means that
there are different kinds of bodies inhabiting public space and
the likelihood is that not all of these will be perceived as hostile.
The presence of the others friendly or neutral I would
like to suggest, creates greater possibilities for those who are
perceived to be hostile to each other to coexist.
friendly bodies
Before going further it is important to ask the question:
What are friendly bodies? In my understanding, friendly bodies
would render a space more accessible generally making it
easier to inhabit public space. In interviews, women articulated
certain kinds of people as friendly presences on the
street. These included other women in general, college
students, pedestrians going about their business. Our research
suggests that the presence of hawkers often renders streets
friendlier. For instance, the roads alongside the Hutatma
Chowk in Fort used to have many street booksellers. In 2005,
the booksellers were removed and only a few remained at one
corner. This transformed what was a friendly street for women
commuters to walk down even after dark into one which was
much less so. Not only does the presence of hawkers contribute
to womens access by bringing people onto the streets, adding
the street lighting and providing eyes in the street but in a
more general way is refl ective of the right to be in public. The
recent efforts to boot hawkers off the streets in Mumbai are
therefore also counterproductive for women.
Often young women pointed to Bandra as the suburb of
Mumbai that they would all want to live in for its acknowledgement
of the professional woman, but also for its busy
crowded streets even late into the night. Two women, by no
means a statistically significant number, but nonetheless worth
recounting, made the observation, that in Bandra even the
presence of the sex worker is not anxiety inducing. They are
simply co-users of the street. I am interested in thinking through
what makes this coexistence possible. Does the sex worker not
sexualise these particular streets? What makes the streets impervious
to such sexualisation? Alternatively, what might
make such sexualisation acceptable? Are there multiple layers
of sexualisation on some of these streets? I would like to risk
suggesting here that the more complex and multidimensional a
space, the more comfortable it is likely to be for women.
Another interesting narrative came from a young undergraduate
student at a book reading. She identified herself as a
sportsperson, and said that in the neighbourhood where she
lives in Vashi there are women hanging out, even loitering
rather late into the night. Young women and young men are
out on the streets, sometimes together but also separately and
there are a fair number of them. The number of young women
allowed out at night is growing. While she suggests a specific
sense of her own identity of that as a woman and a sportsperson
which perhaps had implications for how she experienced
and inhabited her own body and its capacities, it is nonetheless
interesting to reflect on the possibilities such narratives have
for thinking about friendlier, more accessible public spaces.
solution of loitering
Reflecting on these cases, it becomes increasingly clear that
the solution to the restrictions on the loitering of young women
is not to restrict the loitering by young men, or indeed anyone
else. However, conditions must be facilitated within which
more friendly bodies can be part of these public spaces.
While some bodies may be perceived as unfriendly, their
right to space needs to be acknowledged, without them becoming
the reason why young women cannot be in public space.
The idea of strangers friendly, neutral and even unfriendly
peopling ones landscape is not a new one. Georg Simmel
(1908) in his seminal essay on the stranger suggested that most
forms of social interaction involve engaging with strangeness.
The stranger for Simmel is not the unknown outsider
from another planet (as it were) but someone who though he
does not belong to the group is known to it. The stranger, like
the poor and like sundry inner enemies, is an element of the
group itself. His position as a full-fl edged member involves
both being outside it and confronting it. The stranger then in
Simmels understanding is a part of our world. He suggests
that the stranger who is really strange has to be rendered notquite-
human so not to be regarded as part of the group at all.
Michael Warner (2002) reflects on stranger-sociability
arguing that
In modern society, a stranger is not as marvelously exotic as the wandering
outsider would have been in an ancient, medieval, or early
modern town. In that earlier social order, or in contemporary analogues,
a stranger is mysterious, a disturbing presence requiring resolution. In
the context of a public, however, strangers can be treated as already
belonging to our world.
In April 2009 a young international female student in Mumbai
was drugged and sexually assaulted by six acquaintances. She
had gone out with the accused youth, whom she had met once
before as her friends friends, and another female friend to a
suburban bar. After the female friend left, the woman student
continued to hang out with the male friends at the bar and at
their insistence drank alcohol. Later she accompanied them to
the apartment of another of their male friend where she was
assaulted while she was unconscious. This young woman
was sometimes cast as stupid for going out late at night with
these strangers.