‘Non-Places’ and the Reality of Women’s Right to Freedom

On the night of 16 December 2012, a young female physiotherapist was brutally gang raped by six men and left for dead in the capital of India. She, along with her friend were returning from a late-night movie show and made the mistake of boarding an off-duty charter bus with six men to get back home. The incident made headlines not just for the brutality of the attack, but also because of the fight that the victim put up. ‘Nirbhaya’ dominated headlines as a shocked country rallied behind her and sought punishment for the six rapists, one a minor (TOI Online, 2019). Yet, like all similar incidents, it also inevitably raised questions about the prudence of actually being out on the deserted streets of Delhi late at night. In some corner of nearly every female mind, a red flag was raised about the geography of the incident, and a silent vow made to avoid such spaces. Unfortunately, for women, this was just an addition to the list of ‘non-places’ to avoid, and this paper argues that this list is an ever expanding one that belies the formal equality and freedom of movement that women supposedly enjoy in the twenty first century. The exclusion of women from public spaces across countries, societies and classes is an unfortunate pointer to the continuing problems of vulnerability and the lack of acceptability of women as individuals and equal participants in state and society. This exclusion from public spaces not only restricts choices of movement, but also affects life choices which are constantly negotiated keeping these restrictions in mind.

The term ‘non-place’, coined by the French anthropologist Marc Augé, refers to transient generic places where people remain anonymous, and these could include hotel rooms, airports or shopping malls (Augé, 1995). These places are strictly subjective and may vary based on an individual’s interaction in that space. These are also in contradiction to spaces where individuals may meet for social interaction and where their identities are recognized. For the purpose of this paper, the term ‘non-place’ is being used for the large generic spaces that remain out of bounds for women as they negotiate their lives. In her article “The Geography of Women’s Fear” Gill Valentine argues that these are spaces where women find themselves vulnerable to attacks from men and are largely avoided thereby restricting their freedom to be in certain public spaces at particular times. She argues that public blame of victims of rape and murder for being in ‘inappropriate’ places at certain times when they have been attacked has led to a transference of threat perception from men to certain places where they have been attacked (Valentine, 1989).

This creates incorrect ideas of certain public spaces as spaces of fear whereas according to Valentine the reality is that even the safe space of a home or family may be equally unsafe for some. “In particular women learn to perceive danger from strange men in public space despite the fact that statistics on rape and attack emphasise clearly that they are more at risk at home and from men they know” (Valentine, p. 386). Large open spaces that are frequently deserted or spaces with limited exits and bad lighting automatically become associated as spaces of fear and women tend to perceive these differently from men. In certain cases, familiarity with these spaces may make a difference as there is comfort in the knowledge of informal social control. In environments beyond areas that are familiar to her, the judgement is based on received images of what constitutes safe social behavior in a particular place. This is complicated, according to Valentine by notions of racial or ethnic biases where for instance, a white woman may feel unsafe in an Afro Caribbean neighborhood given negative racial assumptions about the violent nature of men of colour. Similar to nearly every other part of the world, Valentine’s research in Reading UK shows that there is a general fear about public spaces at night given the fact that these spaces tend to be dominated by men with a perceived capacity of violence. This inability to safely negotiate public spaces pushes women to adopt traditional gender roles and depend on male protection which then restricts their life choices and their right as individuals to inhabit spaces they wish to. Many, for instance rethink a career opportunity that would entail living alone in a different city.

Very similar understanding of what are ‘non-places’ emerges from research about women and the use of public spaces in Mumbai, India. Shilpa Phadke, Shilpa Ranade and Sameera Khan in their article ‘Why loiter? Radical Possibilities for Gendered Dissent’, argue that women’s non-access to certain public spaces not just affects their relationship to the city but also restricts a more inclusive notion of citizenship (Phadke, et al, 2009). While there has been support for the struggle against violence that women face in their everyday life, there is very little support even within the feminist movement for the women’s desire for pleasure. However, the authors argue that there is a fundamental connection between the two and one can the quest for pleasure can actually strengthen the struggle against violence. This is because the quest for pleasure involves a more inclusive understanding that is not based on a differentiation between genders and also involves the facilitation of very similar infrastructure, good lighting, safe transport, public toilets and more understanding law enforcement agencies. Based on research done as part of a gender and Space Project at PUKAR it sought to examines women’s access to public spaces in Mumbai. The research showed that despite being dubbed the friendliest city in the country with an acceptance of the desirability and visibility of women as professionals their access to public spaces was limited.

The authors demonstrate this through their study of the right to loiter in public spaces and reach the conclusion that across cities in Asia this is a right that remains restricted. They go on to argue that despite the support for the right to a professional life that modernity entails, women remain the upholders of moral and cultural values that defines the community and the nation. Urban middle class women, therefore, stand in stark contrast to lower class men whose presence in public spaces is both accepted and a reality that actually inhibits the presence of women in these spaces. Defined as the ‘dangerous’ other their presence and the danger that they represent is internalised by women who then avoid these spaces inhabited by the tapori.
This not only restricts spaces available to women in the city but according to the authors also support a social and class distinction that is maintained by this non interaction. The presence of women in these public spaces is only tolerated if it is supported by a purpose. “The visible Mumbai woman accesses public space purposefully, she carries large bags, parcels and babies to illustrate her purpose, uses her cell phone as a barrier between herself and the world, and heads unerringly for the ladies’ compartment of the local train.” (Phadke, et al, p. 189) On the one hand this illustrates expectations from an average Mumbai woman, i.e., child-rearing, shopping, etc., which seems to become their ‘purpose’ but on the other raises questions about the inevitable distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ women who do loiter in the streets bringing into question their morality. Two kinds of women, the window shopper and the street walker do appear to loiter in public spaces but shopping is accepted as respectable in a consumerist society whereas the street walker who loiters is unrespectable and not even worthy of safety that the city offers to others.

Loitering, according to the authors, is an act of choice whose purpose is self-gratification and unless women have the right to it as well the idea of a truly inclusive city remains unfulfilled. In fact, the authors argue that these rights including the right to loiter should be available to all marginal groups in the city not just women and only when this happens can the city truly belong to everyone.

Anadi Mishra in an article reviewing a decade of the publication of the book Why Loiter? Women and Risk on Mumbai Streets talks of her actual experience of walking in six Indian cities (Mishra, 2013). Her experiences as a single female journalist living alone varies somewhat across cities, with Pune offering more in terms of freedom of choice and a more permissive environment for living as a single person. However, the fact that women are forced to negotiate spaces they traverse much more carefully than men and that the narrative of security remains upmost in the minds of women and their families is clearly evident in her narratives across the cities. In fact, societal restrictions that include notions of keeping women safe is one of the reasons why the presence of women in public spaces is restricted. Also, the very act of city planning seems to be skewed towards the fact that public spaces would be accessed largely by men.

In fact, studies have shown that the design of public spaces in cities is such that it assumes that women would only access them as commuters not as a space of leisure (Khanna and Puthran, 2020). Since time, immemorial women have been associated with the private space of the home while men are largely associated with the public spaces of the outside world. Franck and Paxson, in the course of their research argue that it is incorrect to assume that given a choice, women do not enjoy the access and leisure of public space. Therefore, the context within which women do not use public spaces is important to understand and it is this that would eventually provide a solution of the ‘freedom of the street’ (Franck and Paxson, p. 122). Most of these restrictions are based on traditional social expectations though others emerge from real life experiences of harassment. And neither is easy to transform unless one delves deep into changing both perceptions and policies.

While Franck and Paxson argue that the reduction of the dichotomy of the public and the private could encourage greater use of public spaces it is an unfortunate reality that even in spaces considered primarily private freedom is often equally restricted (Franck and Paxson, p. 140). Most societies, regardless of country or state, put a stamp of expectations and ‘rules’ on woman. For example, countless times, if a teacher finds a girl child running about on campus or being boisterous, they tell her “Sit still like a lady, don’t behave like a rowdy boy.” This not only puts a label on the girl child as one who “sits still, looks pretty”, but also on boys as being rowdy and loud and rough. It is really a two-pronged weapon which strikes at the very root of the right of individuals, to express themselves freely and follow their life choices. In fact, a woman can never be fully free regardless of the space. There are countless studies that show that chances of harassment and violation are greatest within the so-called safe confines of the family (Philip, 2015). How does one ensure safety for women? How does one ensure they have an equal right to public spaces, which are overtaken by men and made ‘theirs’? How can public spaces be designed in such a way that they can be enjoyed by everyone and used equally? Franck and Paxson argue that ‘a public environment that demonstrates respect for women through symbolic messages will help to increase women’s rights to use public spaces and their comfort in doing so” (Franck and Paxson, p. 142). However, none of this would be possible unless the society’s mindset as a whole is changed and that is easier said than done.

References

Augé, Marc. “Non-places: Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity.” Capital & Class, vol. 20, no. 3, SAGE Publishing, Oct. 1996, pp. 144–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/030981689606000111.

Franck, Karen A. and Paxson, Lynn. “Women and Urban Public Space: Research, Design and Policy Issues”, in Irwin Altman and Ervin H Zube (eds), Public Places and Spaces, Plenum Press, New York and London, 1989.

Khanna, Navya, and Puthran, Prarthana. “Women in Public Spaces: When Gender Is Ignored While Shaping Cities.” Feminism in India, Nov. 2021, https://feminisminindia.com/2020/11/12/women-in-public-spaces-street-safety/ .

Mishra, Anandi. “‘Why Loiter?’ Ten Years Have Passed Since the Seminal Book on Women Alone in Cities Was Published.” Scroll.in, 3 May 2021, https://scroll.in/article/993810/why-loiter-ten-years-have-passed-since-the-seminal-book-on-women-alone-in-cities-was-published .

Phadke, Shilpa. “‘Why Loiter? Radical Possibilities for Gendered Dissent.” Tiss, May 2014, https://www.academia.edu/343458/_Why_Loiter_Radical_Possibilities_for_Gendered_Dissent.

Philip, Christin Mathew. “86% of Rapes Were Committed by People Known to Victims: NCRB.” The Times of India, 19 Aug. 2015, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/86-of-rapes-were-committed-by-people-known-to-victims-ncrb/articleshow/48544137.cms .

Toi-Online. “What Is Nirbhaya Case?” The Times of India, 18 Dec. 2019, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/what-is-nirbhaya-case/articleshow/72868430.cms.

Valentine, Gill. “The Geography of Women’s Fear.” Area, vol. 21, no. 4, Dec. 1989, pp. 385–90. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20000063.

Nayantara Sengupta
Intern, Asia in Global Affairs

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author, in his personal capacity. It does not reflect the policies and perspectives of Asia in Global Affairs.