In this part of my conceptual framework I explore the use of public space, both in a gendered perspective and to see how one use public space in society to protest or show their presence in way of dissenting. I first look at gendered uses of public space before I look at the use of public space for dissent and for being heard. Something noteworthy before reading through the following two chapters on the use of public space is that it is important to have in mind that even if there is a lot about the ruling elites, capturing and regulations of public space in this part of my paper. It is important to have in mind that regulations of public space and the control of the use is not only done by governmental active control, but social control and corrections is also an important part of this (Holloway & Hubbard 2001:208) even though my wording might not always reflect this.
4.6.1 Gendered use of public space
First I look at different modes of using public space, modes that are often dependent on gender in the way that it is being utilized. The reason for this is that men and women have traditionally had different roles in society. Traditionally men and women have been seen to have different impact on the public space as women mainly or dominantly have been confined to the space of the home (Mitchell 2000:207).
In Cultural Geography, one finds the same essentialist argumentation that has been discussed in sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2. These arguments state that women are essentially different from men by being naturally peaceful and less imposing on others. This in turn means that in a matter of the use of public space women are comparably more peaceful and non-visible as they do not occupy the streets or show visible public counter- or sub-culture in the same way as men. The use of public space is not un-gendered, not when just considering everyday activities and not when considering more dissenting activities. This does not mean that women necessarily act differently today, but it means that it has to a large degree happened before and there are different inhibitors and promoters of the use of public space and these are often divided on the basis of gender, age, race, mobility and so on. Therefore it is important to take such differences into account (Grundström 2005:1). Since this is a gender focused paper I concentrate on this issue and do not take the others into account.
It might seem in some instances that men try to be more visible; an example of this could be the clearly male gay scene of Castro in San Francisco. Some lesbian areas do not display that it is a lesbian area; you would need to know to find this fact about the area. These two cases are particularly good as examples as they are more clearly limited to one of the genders than what would be possible to find in a more heteronormativity environment or example (Mitchell 2000:191). Although giving good examples, these are just anecdotal, as other gay or lesbian areas are either gay and visible, gay and invisible, lesbian and visible or lesbian and invisible. The pattern does not seem to be defined by the gender or sexual preference, even though one might believe it from the evidence provided in the beginning (Mitchell 2000:192).
The examples and the historical background given in this short section are merely something to have in mind while reading section 4.6.2 as differences in the gendered use of public space is important to understand. The differences, or lack thereof, in male and female uses of public space for dissent in the work of the Frente Nacional de Resistencia Popular of Honduras and associated organizations come up later in this thesis, mainly considering my focus in chapters 6 and 8.
4.6.2 The use of public space for dissent
Streets and parks have been seen as the place where ideas compete and a place where citizens discus more or less public questions (Mitchell 2003:48). Whilst public spaces are just that, spaces that are available to the public to mostly free and independent use there has during history always been people that use public space for reasons and actions that might not
be desirable for the rest of the population or for the elites governing the country, city, district or what does make up the authority in that given setting. The authorities have taken steps in certain situations to prohibit or limit different kinds of behavior that go beyond providing basic security to all and limiting the use of public spaces to things like protests or livelihoods for persons without homes (Mitchell 2003:1-3).
In most western democracies the inhabitants have the right to free speech, something that is often protected by the Constitution or similar laws of the different countries. Many countries in the rest of the world have such laws, but both in the west and the in the rest there are different degrees of how much they are respected and what they allow. However even in countries that mostly respect free speech, there has been a tendency to limit free speech by using the public space and laws regulating it to limit the amount of dissent or how much the rest of the population perceives of it. This can be done by regulating where and when it is lawful to perform the speeches or the protests, thus limiting the choice over and free use of public space (Mitchell 2003:4). Anthony Vidler is cited in Mitchell (2003:5) with “if the idea of public space and its role in urban life needs to be preserved, then we also need to be aware that that idea has never been guaranteed. It has only been won through concerted struggle, and then, after the fact, guaranteed (to some extent) in the law.”
It has been argued by some that the need for order and security in the streets weighs more than the individual and collective rights to free use of public space, making it socially positive to exclude homeless and other unwanted elements (often protests and similar) from the public space (Mitchell 2003:15).
A premise in talking about the use of public space for dissent is that the right to use the public space of the city has to be won; as Vidler states, these rights have to be won through battles in the homes, in the streets, in the courtrooms and in parliaments. Such rights always exist in a social context, not as something given. This makes it necessary for people to take the rights to protest for themselves when necessary in given political and social contexts, if they do not already have those rights (Mitchell 2003:42). In human history these excluded groups are often women, workers, dissidents, poor, disabled, sexual minorities and so on;
groups that need to take this right by protests or to fight to be heard so that the ruling classes or the elite actually notices and/or listens to their demands or problems (Mitchell 2003:52).
Violence and/or threats of violence might then seem like rational ways of getting attention or having one’s will imposed in a way of withdrawing legitimacy from the ruling elites (Mitchell 2003:53).
The public space is thus power - power that can be captured, either violently as a semi-military conquest or in other milder non-violent ways, like occupying the streets so that others cannot use them, through street plays, stands, meetings, carnivals, exhibitions, flash parties (Mitchell 2003:73; Hertz 2004:227) dancing (Holloways & Hubbard 2001:220) and so on.
For one such action to work as a way of capturing the street it is often necessary that it happens outside of the place where one normally finds such action. Dancing in a club or at a festival is hardly provocative or reclaiming, doing the same in the streets might be.
Capturing or the taking the streets can also be performed by symbolic gestures, using highly contextual symbolic actions that to a certain degree legitimizes the group’s hold of the streets/public space in general or a specific area in particular (Mitchell 2003:82). If the groups capturing these public spaces are underprivileged with limited access to public space in the first place, (even if it is formally guaranteed by law or court) it can be argued that for them to capture the public space in any way might be just to take back what was originally theirs and nothing more (Mitchell 2003:74).
There are also other ways the people or parts of the people in country, region or city take back the streets as well, ways that are more than often deemed criminal, namely by doing graffiti. Even if this might be considered criminal by large parts of the population and/or the ruling elites, for other more marginalized parts of the population this might be considered an act of resistance or to “give the finger” to the society or the elites (Holloway & Hubbard 2001:220).