I N - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L IC A N D PR I VAT E : G E N DE R R E S I STA N C E AND R E C ON F I G U R AT I ON
E LO I S E PI PE R
Essay 1B
Eloise Piper Newnham College, Cambridge An essay submitted in partial fufillment of the requirements for the MPhil in Architecture and Urban Design 2020-2022 3305 words, excluding bibliography and figures All illustrations by author, unless otherwise stated
2
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
Contents
4 Introduction 5
The Public-Private Spatial Dichotomy
6
Gender Inequality in Public and Private Space
10
Gender Resistance and Reconfiguration
18
The In-between Space
22 Conclusion 23 Bibliography 26
List of Illustrations
3
Introduction
[Figure 1] (below) ‘Raging Protests after Femicide in Turkey’, ANF News <https://anfenglish.com/women/raging-protests-after-femicide-in-turkey-45444> [accessed 05 January 2021]
4
Feminist theory addresses an array of issues regarding the gendering of space. The public-private dichotomy is one of these because feminists understand how it can enforce gender inequality in the city. There is debate surrounding this issue in Turkey with regards to the visibility of domestic violence and violence against women. Feminists in Istanbul are protesting against President Erdoğan and his party’s aim to withdraw from the Istanbul convention (which legally prevents and combats violence against women) on the grounds that it encourages an immoral, anti-family lifestyle (Figure 1). This important matter in the current Turkish social context can be explored spatially because it is reflected in public and private space. Hence, this paper will explore how the public-private spatial dichotomy increases gender inequality for women; with the aim of discovering an alternative to the dichotomy. Firstly, this essay will analyse public spaces and women’s shelters in Istanbul in order to establish how this dichotomy increases gender inequality. Secondly, this paper will analyse Gezi Park in Istanbul as an example space that resists and reconfigures the public-private distinction, resulting in increased gender equality. It will be argued Gezi Park and women’s shelters are connected because Gezi is a protest space where women resisted the government’s private-public ideology surrounding gender-based violence. This ideology affects the institutions of care for victims of domestic violence, such as women’s shelters, and hence affects gender equality. Therefore, this paper will overall argue for a resistance against and reconfiguration of the public-private dichotomy, in order to increase gender spatial equality.
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
The Public/Private Spatial Dichotomy The public-private dichotomy in feminist, spatial discourse has been discussed as encouraging normative gender roles. Indeed, Arendt theorises that the ‘distinction between a private and public sphere of life corresponds to the household and the political realms’.1 Whitson and Hayden posit further that the distinction is still present in a contemporary context and that this ideological separation is reflected in the built environment.2 The private, household space reflects a traditional, nuclear family structure and is associated with women.3 The political, public sphere reflects power and patriarchy. Furthermore, this clear distinction reflects a boundary, and an opposition to movement between these spheres. Feminist architects have used this as a rationale for spatial interventions in the public and private spheres that reconfigure their relationship towards more gender inclusive design.
1
Endnotes 1 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 2nd ed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), p. 28. 2 Risa Whitson, ‘Spaces of Culture and Identity Production: Home, Consumption, and the Media’, in Feminist Spaces: Gender and Geography in a Global Context, ed. by Ann M. Oberhauser, Jennifer L. Fluri, Risa Whitson, and Sharlene Mollett (London: Routledge, 2018), pp. 47-76 (p. 53). 3 Selda Tuncer, Gendered Public Spaces: Women’s Narratives of Everyday Violence in Modern Turkey, 2015 <https://doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.1.2111.6646>
2
r
ar
3
ce
ears
on
5 4 6
1
Ragıp Gümüspala Street
4
Çadırcılar Street - Grand Bazaar
Women 15-65 years
2
Galata Bridge
5
Nuruosmaniye Street
Men 15-65 years
3
Vakıf Hanı Street - Spice Bazaar
6
Yeniçeriler Street
Chidlren 0-15 & Retired 65+
F i g u r e 2 : G e n d e r O c c u p a t i o n i n I s t a n b u l ’s P u b l i c S p a c e s
[Figure 2] (above) Map showing average gender distribution in key public spaces in Istanbul
5
[Figure 3] Representation of teenage girls in ‘Aşk 101’
[Figure 4] Representation of teenage boys in ‘Aşk 101’
6
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
Gender Inequality in Public and Private Space Spatial gender inequality through public space can be understood through conditional access and negotiations of fear by women in Istanbul. ‘Figure 2’ represents a study of major public spaces in Istanbul which have an imbalance of gender occupation; a 39.5% female average in comparison to a 60.7% male average.4 Furthermore, an empirical study into Beyoglu in Istanbul reported that just 15.3% of female participants found the area safe at night-time because most were fearful of crime.5 Unequal occupation of public space is evidenced further by stereotypes in Turkish television. ‘Figure 3’ portrays the continual representation of teenage girls in the home. Whereas ‘Figure 4’ depicts the representation of teenage boys on the street, playing sports, or fighting, in the same television show. More significantly the continual depiction of women in film being followed or killed in public space, exacerbates the notion that the home is safe, and the streets are unsafe. Consequently, it could be deduced that the presence of men or fear of crime largely by men, increases fear for women and affects their presence in public space in Istanbul. This limited movement and fear not only defines female parameters of the city, but also, reinforces male presence in public space. This increases gender inequality because, as asserted by Kern, the function ‘of women’s fear is the control of women […] It limits our use of public spaces […] and keeps us, in what is perhaps an actual paradox, dependent on men as protectors’.6 The public-private dichotomy instigates this inequality. Fear is associated with the public realm and forbidden areas for women, whilst safety is associated within the private realm. Paradoxically however, women are more likely to experience violence within their homes.7 This notion underpins a patriarchal and political sphere, maintaining the place of women in the illusion of a safe private realm. This is a meaningful point to establish within Istanbul because emphasis on the public realm being dangerous for women, results in the neglection of providing safety for women in the private realm. This can be evidenced through the neglection of spaces of care for women, as discussed below.
4 Gehl Architects, ‘Istanbul – Public Space Public Life’, Issuu (2014) <https://issuu.com/gehlarchitects/ docs/issuu_998_istanbul-public-spaces-pu/57> [accessed 8 January 2021] 5 Funda Yirmibesoglu and Nilgun Ergun, ‘Fear of Crime among Women in the Old City Center of Istanbul’, Current Urban Studies, 3.2 (2015), 161-174 <doi: 10.4236/ cus.2015.32014> (p. 166)
6 Leslie Kern, Feminist City: Claiming Space in a Man-Made World (Brooklyn: Verso, 2020), p. 147. 7 Kern, p. 145.
7
[Figure 5] (right) ‘Wages for Housework and Social Reproduction: A Microsyllabus’, The Abusable Past, 2020 <https://www. radicalhistoryreview.org/abusablepast/wages-for-housework-and-social-reproduction-a-microsyllabus/> [accessed 03 December 2020]
Spaces of Care and Social Reproduction Theory
8 Kim Trogal, ‘Caring: Making Commons, Making Connections’, in The Social Re Production of Architecture: Politics, Values and Actions in Contemporary Practice, ed. by Doina Petrescu & Kim Trogal (London: Routledge, 2017), pp. 159-174 (p. 160). 9 Tithi Bhattacharya, ‘Introduction: Mapping Social Reproduction Theory’, in Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentring Oppression, ed. by Tithi Bhattacharya (London: Pluto Press, 2017), pp. 1-20 (p. 2). 10 Trogal, p. 160.
11 Bethan McKernan, ‘Murder in Turkey Sparks Outrage over Rising Violence against Women’, The Guardian (2020) <https://www. theguardian.com/world/2020/ jul/23/turkey-outrage-rising-violence-against-women> [accessed 8 January 2021]
8
Social Reproduction Theory exposes how spaces of care can be excluded from political concern. This is because it emphasises how reproductive labour is often undervalued within society, which includes care labour. The theory centralises reproductive labour as sustaining Capitalist society as a whole (Figure 5). A society that only legitimises productive labour and belittles the reproductive work mostly performed by women.8 Social Reproduction Theory feminists also clarify that the reproductive-productive binary can be structured within the public-private conception.9 The theory explains the exclusion of care spaces from political importance, because they are private and reproductive spaces, often concerning gendered issues. Social Reproduction Theory, as argued by Trogal, recognises ‘the importance of including care within our understandings of architectural production, to highlight a critical yet often unseen relationship between space, architecture and care’.10 Therefore, the theory will be used as an analysis tool within a Turkish context, to understand how the devaluing of spaces of care affects gender equality. Women’s shelters in Istanbul present this importance of space, architecture and care. Despite violence against women being a major focus for feminism in Turkey right now; 42% of Turkish women aged between 15-60 have experienced violence, 43% of reports of domestic violence are ‘resolved’ by reconciliation of victim and perpetrator,11 and the women’s shelters that care for these victims are either underfunded
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
or lacking in quantity.12 There are only 0.04 women’s shelters in Turkey per 10,000 people, which is far lower than other countries in Europe as represented in ‘Figure 6’.13 Diner and Toktaş further suggest ‘the laws and policies designed to support women and combat domestic violence contradict the prevailing mentality within society and state institutions, which support the integrity of the family’.14 Women’s shelters in Turkey do not have the influence, in a patriarchal gaze, to effectively combat violence against women.15 The exclusion of women’s shelters from politics represents the spatial conception of the public-private dichotomy. The ideology of the private, family space transcends domestic violence as a political issue. Consequently, women’s shelters as the architecture of care for victims of domestic violence, are overlooked in politics. This neglection is also explained by Social Reproduction Theory, which again understands how reproductive spaces of care are neglected in political society. Instead, arguably under the theory, women’s shelters should be valued and legitimised publicly and monetarily. Critically, valuing spaces of care would also bring visibility to the fact women are highly likely to experience violence in their home. Therefore, Social Reproduction Theory suggests a resistance against the public/private dichotomy that restricts the effectiveness of women’s shelters, and therefore affects gender equality. Furthermore, this resistance is already present, as discussed below in Gezi Park, Istanbul.
12 Cagla Diner and Şule Toktaş, ‘Women’s Shelters in Turkey: A Qualitative Study on Shortcomings of Policy Making and Implementation’, Violence Against Women, 19 (2013), 338–55 <https://doi. org/10.1177/107780121348625 > (p.330) 13 Diner and Toktaş, p. 339. 14 Diner and Toktaş, p. 343. 15 Diner and Toktaş, p. 338.
[Figure 6] (below) Density map of women’s shelters per 10,000 people
0.04 shelter's per 10,000 people
9
Gender Resistance and Reconfiguration
16 Henri Lefebvre, Writings on Cities, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), p. 148. 17 Risa Whitson, ‘Gendering the Right to the City’, in Feminist Spaces: Gender and Geography in a Global Context, ed. by Ann M. Oberhauser, Jennifer L. Fluri, Risa Whitson, and Sharlene Mollett (London: Routledge, 2018), pp. 77-106 (p. 79). 18 Whitson, p. 80. 19 Whitson, p. 78.
The Gezi Park Occupy protests of 2013 can be seen as a feminist resistance against the public-private dichotomy. The occupation was triggered by the government’s plan to renovate the park (Figure 7). Yet, Gezi was a vast empire protesting for many causes, including a protest for the right to the city (Figure 8). Lefebvre’s ‘the right to the city’ concept conveys a political struggle and reclamation of space by marginalised groups.16 This includes the right to appropriate urban space.17 As well as the right to participate, which means engagement ‘in the decision-making political life, and management of the city’.18 The Gezi protests were arguably a struggle for an equal right to the city because the people’s right to participate and appropriate was at risk. The right to the city can be considered a gendered issue, because, as Whitson argues, the propagation of movements like these ‘highlight the ways in which the struggle over access to the city, representation in public space, and social belonging in the city continue to be gendered and sexualized’.19 Gezi was partially a protest against this gendering and sexualisation in Istanbul.
[Figure 8] (below ) Gezi Empire
10
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
[Figure 7] ‘Over 1,000 Gezi Protestors Sign Petition Calling for Acquittal of Defendants in Trial’, Ahval <https://ahvalnews.com/gezi-protests/over-1000-gezi-protestors-sign-petition-calling-acquit tal-defendants-trial> [accessed 16 January 2021]
11
Living in fear in
Living in fear in private spaces
#KadınaŞiddeteHayır
#İstanbulSözleşmesiYaşatır
#KadınaŞiddeteHayır
Protesting for Emin
Protesting for Pinar Gültekin 1993-2020
#ChallengeAccepted
NOWHERE IS SAFE My c od
e.
r.
SURVIVE LOCKDOWN
iou ehav My b
DO NOT WALK HOME ALONE AT NIGHT
My c od
e.
THE PU
THE PRIVATE de. ttitu My a
#Challenge
My i nten tion.
tt My a
GO TO THE POLICE
TO SPEAK UP MEANS TO GET BLAMED
“Women who have been beaten go to the police and are told, don’t file a complaint, it will just make your husband angry”- Ozlem Ozkan
“BE CAREFUL”
Why are women still being killed? Why should we live like this?
[Figure 9, 11, 11] (left to right) → 9. Gendered Private Space 10. Gendered Public Space 11. Political Actions
As conceptualised in ‘Figure 9’, this includes a woman’s right to private space being affected by domestic violence. Likewise, ‘Figure 10’ demonstrates how a woman’s right to public space is also affected by harassment and engrained female intentions, codes, attitudes and behaviours in order to feel safe. However, ‘Figure 11’, illustrates the political realm’s actions that incite domestic violence in private space, or harassment in public space, through plans to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention or politicians encouraging verbal harassment of women on the street. These political actions only further emphasise the spatial public-private dichotomy which reinforces a gendered experience of space in Istanbul. At Gezi, women were protesting against this gendered experience, demonstrating the argument for a resistance against the public-private dichotomy, because to resist can increase an equal right to the city.
12
e. itud
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
Why are wome
Why should
n public spaces
Living in fear in of the Government
#İstanbulSözleşmesiYaşatır
#KadınaŞiddeteHayır
#İstanbulSözleşmesiYaşatır
ne Bulut 1981-2019
Protesting for the Istanbul Convention
eAccepted r.
iou ehav My b
HEADPHONES ON, KEYS IN HAND
Thei rc
rb Thei
r.
iou ehav
“VERBALLY HARRASS WOMEN ON STREETS FOR WEARING SHORTS” -Binali Yıldırım, former PM
THE POLITICAL e.
My i nten tion.
d we live like this?
#ChallengeAccepted ode.
UBLIC
en still being killed?
“ISTANBUL CONVENTION PROMOTES LGBTQ+RELATIONSHIPS”
Thei r int entio n.
itud r att Thei
ENJOY THE CITY FREELY
WITHDRAW FROM THE ISTANBUL CONVENTION
“SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN WEARING THAT”
-Erdoğan, President
Why are women still being killed? Why should we live like this?
The wider struggle of Gezi included feminists, LGBTQ+ activists and socialists; to an extent the camp was spatially organised into these groups (Figure 12). A commonality amongst them was against the de-politization of gendered issues and the government’s attitude toward gender equality, such as the continual lack of implementation of domestic violence laws and protection for women’s shelters. Furthermore, 2011 saw the replacement of the ‘State Ministry Responsible for Women and Family’ with the ‘Ministry of Family and Social Policies’.20 The resistance was a ‘collective body’21 against these actions, and to Butler represent ‘a moment, politics is no longer defined as the exclusive business of public sphere distinct from a private one […] bringing attention to the way that politics is already in the home, or on the street, or in the neighbourhood’.22 Therefore, Gezi can be seen as collective resistance against the notion of de-politicised private sphere, and against the presumption that women belong in the home because it causes the de-politization of gendered issues, such as domestic violence. Arguably, gendered issues being brought to the frontline of politics at Gezi, resists the public-private dichotomy towards gender equality.
20 Gül Aldıkaçtı Marshall, ‘The Participation of Women in the Gezi Park Protests Reflects Concerns That the Turkish Government Could Roll Back the Country’s Gender Equality Reforms’, EUROPP (2013) <https://blogs.lse. ac.uk/europpblog/2013/11/12/ the-participation-of-women-inthe-gezi-park-protests-reflectsconcerns-that-the-turkish-government-could-roll-back-the-countrys-gender-equality-reforms/> [accessed 2 January 2021] 21 Ece Canlı and Fatma Umul, ‘Bodies on the Streets: Gender Resistance and Collectivity in the Gezi Revolts’, Interface, 7 (2015), 19-39 < http://www.interfacejournal.net/wordpress/wp-content/ uploads/2015/06/Issue-7-1-Canliand-Umul.pdf> [accessed 20 December 2020] (p. 26) 22 Judith Butler, ‘Bodies in Alliance and the Politics of the Street’, Transversal Texts (2011) <https:// transversal.at/transversal/1011/ butler/en> [accessed 31 October 2020]
13
23 Pelin Tan, ‘Decolonizing Architectural Education: Towards an Affective Pedagogy’, in The Social Re Production of Architecture: Politics, Values and Actions in Contemporary Practice, ed. by Doina Petrescu & Kim Trogal (London: Routledge, 2017), pp. 77-88 (p.88) 24 Kern, p. 122. 25 ILO, ‘Promoting Gender Equality in the World of Work’, ILO Ankara (2020) <https://www.ilo.org/ankara/ projects/gender-equality/lang--en/ index.htm> [accessed 10 January 2021]
The Gezi Occupy camp also became a collective, temporary home for the protesters which reconfigured the public boundaries of politics. Space was designated for a mosque, a creche, for yoga classes and more (Figure 13). Furthermore, Architecture for All’s temporary installations for the occupiers created a domesticity to protest space, as visualised in ‘Figures 14-16’. Temporary spaces such as libraries, shelters and communal tables, as opined by Tan, created ‘an embodiment through design methods, to preserve the effect of a spatial resistance but opens it for collective common practice’.23 This is important from a feminist position because marches and protests often normalise able-bodiedness, assume accessibility which affects people with prams too, emphasise motion and can exclude single parents who have to work and provide childcare.24 These issues disproportionately affect women, especially in Turkey, where women still take primary responsibility for the household. Indeed just 34.5% of Turkish women are in the paid labour force.25 Therefore, Gezi was not only a public protest, but also a domestic, inclusive space that somewhat mitigated gendered issues presented in marches. Arguably, this justifies the argument for a resistance against and reconfiguration of the public-private dichotomy. This is because a domestication of public protest space in Gezi through the temporary architecture, created a generally more inclusive space existing in-between the public and private realms.
Nationlist
Communist
Kurdish
Muslim
LGBTQ+
Green
Socialist
Football
Anarchist
[Figure 12] (right and next spread) Gezi Park Occupation Groups
14
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
15
[Figure 13] (next spread) Gezi Occupation Spaces 1. Commons 2. Cafe 3. Infirmary 4. Kitchen 5. Warehouse 6. Garden 7. Library 8. Mosque 9. Creche 10. Fountain 11. Storage 12. Radio 13. TV 14. Livestream 15. International 16. Memorial 17. Solidarity [Figure 14, 15, 16] (top to bottom) 14. Gezi Library 15. Gezi Shelter 16. Gezi Communal Table
16
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
6
5 7
8 16
4
10 17 11
3 12 1 15 2
13 2
14
9
17
The In-between Space Gezi Park existed as an in-between space that resisted and reconfigured the public-private dichotomy towards gender equality. Indeed, Kern theorises that the structure of the public and private creates a ‘choice women throughout history have had to make: be politically active, with all of its risks, or perform your duties as a caregiver in the private, depoliticized space of the home’.26 The implications of Kern’s identification of the home as a ‘de-politicized’ space, could be that to oppose spatial oppression, the home should be politicised. As such, the reverse could also be true. If the home is to be politicised, then the public sphere could be domesticated thus creating the in-between space. It suggests a permanent state of the in-between, whereas Gezi existed as a moment in time. Thus, the in-between can also be a continual existence in space and can already be seen within Istanbul
26 Kern, p. 131.
The Domestication of Private Space and Politicisation of Public Space
27 Amy Mills, ‘Gender and Mahalle (Neighborhood) Space in Istanbul’, Gender, Place & Culture, 14.3 (2007), 335–54, <https://doi.org/1 0.108009663690701324995>(p. 744) 28 Mills, p. 336.
29 Mills, p. 344.
18
In Istanbul, women domesticate public space. For example, in Mahalles (neighbourhoods) such as Kuzguncuk, the public and private coexist because the boundary between the interior of the house and the street is fluid.27 Mahalles signify a place of intimate, Turkish life partially due to komşuluk (neighbourliness).28 Komşuluk is often exhibited by women through sharing childcare, socialising to and from balconies and on front stops, open air children’s theatres or drinking tea on the street (Figure 17-18). The Kuzguncuk house, distorts the boundary between street and home because the interior spaces are directly connected to public space (Figure 18-19). Contrastingly, Turkish Hayats (traditional homes) have closed street facades, and open garden facades (Figure 20). Visually demonstrating the traditional bodily restrictions of women in the home. Yet, the symbiotic threshold in the Kuzguncuk typology contributes to the creation of in-between space. It must also be considered that the perception of komşuluk may not be applicable for different women entering the space. Indeed, for younger women performing non-traditional gender roles mahalles can be exclusionary.29 Nonetheless, it is still a convincing example of how women reconfigure the public-private dichotomy resulting in an increased gender-equal occupation of Kuzguncuk which could decrease female fear. Especially in comparison to the earlier examples of public spaces in Istanbul that have a predominantly male occupation which increases fear. Thus, the idea of the in-between as a gender-equal inhabitation of space, is an argument for a resistance against and reconfiguration of the public-private dichotomy.
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
The politicisation of domestic space by women is evidenced through homes in the Bağcılar municipality of Istanbul. These homes often become a place for formal political gatherings for women in order to engage and recruit for Islamist political parties. Şahin argues that the ‘fluidity between the home and women-only sites facilitates a gendered form of urban governance’.30 The home as a place of debate surpasses its function as an integral private space, oppositional to the public, into ‘a place of sociability that mediates gendered forms of publicness and governance of space’.31 Furthermore, as a gender-segregated space, these meetings often centralise women’s health, domestic violence and motherhood. It suggests that the in-between space centralises women’s involvement in the political realm. This politicisation of domestic space is relevant to the argument because the notion that private space is unpolitical impacts gendered spaces such as women’s shelters. The in-between here is the creation of a political realm by women, which could then increase the visibility of women’s issues.
30 Öznur Şahin, ‘From Home to City: Gender Segregation, Homosociality and Publicness in Istanbul’, Gender, Place & Culture, 25.5 (2018), 743–57 <https://doi.org/10 .1080/0966369X.2018.1455641> (p. 744) 31 Şahin, p. 744.
[Figure 17] (below) Komşuluk in Kuzguncuk
19
[Figure 20] (above) Traditional Turkish Hayat [Figure 19] (below) Kuzguncuk House Threshold
20
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
[Figure 18] Kuzguncuk House & Komşuluk
21
Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has explored how the public-private dichotomy causes spatial gender inequality and argues for a resistance against and reconfiguration of the dichotomy. There is evidence of this dichotomy causing gender inequality through the representation of public space as either dangerous, the place of men or where solely political issues occur, whilst the home is the safe realm for women. The paradox is that the home is where women are more likely to experience violence. The relative safety of public versus private space, marginalises women’s shelters, as within the private realm, because supposedly integral family issues are removed from political concern. Therefore, the distinction of the public-private has direct consequence on gender equality in Istanbul. From these findings, this paper argues for a resistance against and reconfiguration of the dichotomy because it can increase gender equality. This is evidenced by the Gezi Park protests. Gezi politicised private and gendered issues, such as women’s shelters, and domesticated protest space into a common practice. Thus Gezi, as a moment in time, exemplifies the notion of an in-between space. As discovered, the in-between also exists continually in Kuzguncuk and Bağcılar in Istanbul because of women. Both examples, have the spatial qualities that could increase the initial gender equality issues identified in the beginning of the essay. They suggest the in-between space centralises women’s issues in society and increases a gender-equal occupation of space. The implication of all three spaces is that the in-between space exists but can also be replicated; an important observation to make for future architectural practice. In summary, because the public-private dichotomy increases gender inequality this paper overall argues for a resistance against it and reconfiguration of the dichotomy as an in-between space, to increase gender equality.
22
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
Bibliography Arendt, Hannah, The Human Condition, 2nd ed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998) Bhattacharya, Tithi, ‘Introduction: Mapping Social Reproduction Theory’, in Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentring Oppression, ed. by Tithi Bhattacharya (London: Pluto Press, 2017), pp. 1-20 Butler, Judith, ‘Bodies in Alliance and the Politics of the Street’, Transversal Texts (2011) <https://transversal.at/transversal/1011/butler/ en> [accessed 31 October 2020] Canlı, Ece, and Fatma Umul, ‘Bodies on the Streets: Gender Resistance and Collectivity in the Gezi Revolts’, Interface, 7 (2015), 19-39 <http://www.interfacejournal.net/wordpress/wp-content/ uploads/2015/06/Issue-7-1-Canli-and-Umul.pdf> [accessed 20 December 2020] Diner, Cagla, and Şule Toktaş, ‘Women’s Shelters in Turkey: A Qualitative Study on Shortcomings of Policy Making and Implementation’, Violence Against Women, 19 (2013), 338–55 <https://doi. org/10.1177/1077801213486258> Eckardt, Frank, and Kathrin Wildner, Public Istanbul: Spaces and Spheres of the Urban (Bielefeld : transcript Verlag, 2008) Ekal, Berna, ‘Women’s Shelters in Turkey. Whose Responsibility?’, Ethnologie Française, 44.2 (2014), 237–45 <https://www.jstor.org/ stable/42772467?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents> [accessed 02 December 2020] Gehl Architects, ‘Istanbul – Public Space Public Life’, Issuu (2014) <https://issuu.com/gehlarchitects/docs/issuu_998_istanbul-public-spaces-pu/57> [accessed 8 January 2021] Gökarıksel, Banu, ‘The Intimate Politics of Secularism and the Headscarf: The Mall, the Neighborhood, and the Public Square in Istanbul’, Gender, Place & Culture, 19.1 (2012), 1–20 https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0966369X.2011.633428
23
Hayden, Dolores, ‘What Would a Non-Sexist City Be Like? Speculations on Housing, Urban Design, and Human Work’, Signs, 5.3 (1980), S170–87 hooks, bell, Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1990) ILO, ‘Promoting Gender Equality in the World of Work’, ILO Ankara (2020) <https://www.ilo.org/ankara/projects/gender-equality/ lang--en/index.htm> [accessed 10 January 2021] Kern, Leslie, Feminist City: Claiming Space in a Man-Made World (Verso, 2020) Lefebvre, Henri, Writings on Cities, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996) Lyons, Lenore, ‘A Curious Space “in-between”: The Public/Private Divide and Gender-Based Activism in Singapore’, Gender, Technolology and Development, 11.1 (2007), 27-51 <https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852 40601100102> Marshall, Gül Aldıkaçtı ‘The Participation of Women in the Gezi Park Protests Reflects Concerns That the Turkish Government Could Roll Back the Country’s Gender Equality Reforms’, EUROPP (2013) <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2013/11/12/the-participation-ofwomen-in-the-gezi-park-protests-reflects-concerns-that-the-turkishgovernment-could-roll-back-the-countrys-gender-equality-reforms/> [accessed 2 January 2021] McDowell, Linda and Rosemary Pringle, Defining Women: Social Institutions and Gender Divisions, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992) McKernan, Bethan, ‘Murder in Turkey Sparks Outrage over Rising Violence against Women’, The Guardian (2020) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/23/turkey-outrage-rising-violence-againstwomen> [accessed 8 January 2021] Mills, Amy, ‘Gender and Mahalle (Neighborhood) Space in Istanbul’, Gender, Place & Culture, 14.3 (2007), 335–54 <https://doi. org/10.1080/09663690701324995>
24
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
Purcell, Mark, ‘Possible Worlds: Henri Lefebvre and the Right to the City’, Journal of Urban Affairs, 36.1 (2014), 141–54 <https://doi. org/10.1111/juaf.12034> Şahin, Öznur, ‘From Home to City: Gender Segregation, Homosociality and Publicness in Istanbul’, Gender, Place & Culture, 25.5 (2018), 743–57 <https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1455641> Secor, Anna J, ‘The Veil and Urban Space in Istanbul: Women’s Dress, Mobility and Islamic Knowledge’, Gender, Place & Culture, 9.1 (2002), 5–22 <https://doi.org/10.1080/09663690120115010> Tan, Pelin, ‘Decolonizing Architectural Education: Towards an Affective Pedagogy’, in The Social Re Production of Architecture: Politics, Values and Actions in Contemporary Practice, ed. by Doina Petrescu & Kim Trogal (London: Routledge, 2017), pp. 77-88 Trogal, Kim, ‘Caring: Making Commons, Making Connections’, in The Social Re Production of Architecture: Politics, Values and Actions in Contemporary Practice, ed. by Doina Petrescu & Kim Trogal (London: Routledge, 2017), pp. 159-174 Tuncer, Selda, Gendered Public Spaces: Women’s Narratives of Everyday Violence in Modern Turkey, 2015 <https://doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.1.2111.6646> Whitson, Risa, ‘Gendering the Right to the City’, in Feminist Spaces: Gender and Geography in a Global Context, ed. by Ann M. Oberhauser, Jennifer L. Fluri, Risa Whitson, and Sharlene Mollett (London: Routledge, 2018), pp. 77-106 Whitson, Risa, ‘Spaces of Culture and Identity Production: Home, Consumption, and the Media’, in Feminist Spaces: Gender and Geography in a Global Context, ed. by Ann M. Oberhauser, Jennifer L. Fluri, Risa Whitson, and Sharlene Mollett (London: Routledge, 2018), pp. 47-76 Yirmibesoglu, Funda, and Nilgun Ergun, ‘Fear of Crime among Women in the Old City Center of Istanbul’, Current Urban Studies, 3.2 (2015), 161–74 <https://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2015.32014>
25
List of Illustrations All illustrations are the author’s, unless otherwise stated 1) ‘Raging Protests after Femicide in Turkey’, ANF News <https:// anfenglish.com/women/raging-protests-after-femicide-in-tur key-45444> [accessed 05 January 2021] 2) Map showing average gender distribution in key public spaces in Istanbul 3) Representation of teenage girls in ‘Aşk 101’ 4) Representation of teenage boys in ‘Aşk 101’ 5) ‘Wages for Housework and Social Reproduction: A Microsylla bus’, The Abusable Past, 2020 <https://www.radicalhistoryre view.org/abusablepast/wages-for-housework-and-social-repro duction-a-microsyllabus/> [accessed 03 December 2020] 6) Density map of women’s shelters per 10,000 people 7) ‘Over 1,000 Gezi Protestors Sign Petition Calling for Acquit tal of Defendants in Trial’, Ahval <https://ahvalnews.com/gezi-pro tests/over-1000-gezi-protestors-sign-petition-calling-acquittal-de fendants-trial> [accessed 16 January 2021] 8) Gezi Empire 9) Gendered Private Space 10) Gendered Public Space 11) Political Actions 12) Gezi Park Occupation Groups 13) Gezi Occupation Spaces 14) Gezi Library
26
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n
15) Gezi Shelter 16) Gezi Communal Table 17) Komşuluk in Kuzguncuk 18) Kuzguncuk House and Komşuluk 19) Kuzguncuk House Threshold 20) Traditional Turkish Hayat
27
28
I n - B E T W E E N T H E P U B L I C a n d P R I V A T E : G e n d er R e s i s t a n ce a n d R ec o n f igur a ti o n