In this blogpost, I shall summarise Why loiter? Radical possibilities for gendered dissent by Shilpa Phadke, Shilpa Ranade and Sameera Khan. The writers begin with a compelling justification as to why women must be allowed to loiter based on reclaiming public space, which in turn affects their relationship with the city and shapes new citizen relationships. They also highlight how the struggle against violence and the struggle for pleasure are intertwined, with the latter being framed in more inclusive terms. Taking the city of Mumbai as their sample, they analyse the intersections of gender, class, religion and caste. While overall visibility of women in public spaces has improved, their corresponding rights have remained stagnant. Class plays an important role in the accessibility to these public spaces, with women of a certain class and case background being more likely to be legitimised in such spaces over lower class men. The writers also note that the greater the legitimacy one has in public spaces, the less they are to actually be seen in them, while those who do not have these privileges access these spaces subject to many riders. Women in particular must carry themselves in a certain way and do certain things in order to justify their presence in these spaces, while men do not have to do the same. This is further complicated when analysed from a class perspective, wherein women of a certain class standing are given greater legitimacy than those who do not belong to the same class. This is kept in place by hegemonic discourses about the 'ideal' woman and the 'bad' woman. The authors ultimately argue that loitering can upset the hitherto conceptions of the 'ideal' woman that is expected in public spaces. By being allowed to loiter, women can experience their spaces, shaping their identity, not merely as anonymous outsiders. Loitering has the potential of curbing the existing social hierarchies and provides a space for more inclusive citizenship.
No comments:
Post a Comment