The Right to the City and Gendered Everyday Life1

Tovi Fenster
Senior Lecturer, Department of Geography and Human Environment
Tel Aviv University

Introduction incorporate normative expressions of belonging

This paper discusses new forms of belonging which highlight issues of difference, and
and citizenship in cities in the age of cultural, ethnic, racial and gender-based
globalization from a gendered and feminist diversity.2 The result is a shift in the discussion
perspective, and connects them to women’s from the widely-used conceptualization of
everyday lives and to the planning and citizenship to more complex, sophisticated, and
governance of cities. In doing so, it challenges for some less optimistic, interpretations of
the Lefebvrian notion of “the right to the city” exclusion, and towards new formations and
using a gendered and feminist critique, by normative definitions of belonging, particularly
arguing that the identification of the right to on a gendered basis (Kofman, 1995; Yuval-
the city according to this notion pays Davis, 1997, 2000).
insufficient attention to patriarchal power The current literature on citizenship shows
relations, and therefore does not produce a how women have been the object of
relevant standpoint for this discussion. This discrimination in numerous cultures and
critique will be developed by looking at political contexts at all levels and within all
women’s everyday experiences and their sectors, from the private - the home - to the
reflections on their feelings of comfort in, and public - the city and the state - in economic,
sense of belonging and commitment to, the city social, welfare-related and political contexts
in which they live. (Yuval-Davis, 1997; McDowell, 1999; Lister,
Some of the current discussions on citizenship 1997; Young, 1990).
in this era of political and economic Within this framework, this paper attempts
restructuring indeed point to the reconstruction to shed a gendered light over the discourse on
of forms of citizenship and belonging. While citizenship and belonging in the city, rather
traditional definitions of citizenship discuss the than the state. In particular, it looks at the
legal and jurisdictional aspects of the concept, Lefebvrian idea of ‘citadenship,’ that is, the right
referring mainly to equality, communality and to the city. This idea connects the everyday life
homogeneity as components of the meaning of the individual to local governance activities
of citizenship, new forms of this concept and, as argued in this paper, is blind to the

40
 The Right to the City
Introduction
and Gendered Everyday Life

effects of gendered power relations on the rescaling of citizenship, whereby the former
fulfilment of women’s right to the city. The hegemony of the national scale is weakened by
paper demonstrates how, in fact, the abuse of the creation of other scales of reference.4 The
the right to the city has become a daily second change involves a reterritorialization of
experience for many women, as is expressed citizenship so that the tight link between the
in their narratives. nation state’s territorial sovereignty and political
The paper begins with a brief loyalty to the nation state is called into question.
contextualization of the notion of the right to Such a situation follows from a redistribution
the city within the discourse on new forms of of authority to the local – to the city. The third
citizenship. It then analyzes the right to the change entails a reorientation of citizenship far
gendered use of the city, by revealing the tight away from the nation as the predominant
links between the discussion on the right to political community and from citizens as
use public spaces – the city – and the right to homogenous entities. Here the notion of
use private space – the home. This analysis is differentiated citizenship introduced by Iris
followed by a discussion of everyday belonging Marion Young (1998), or the multi-layered
and gendered practices, gendered exclusions citizenship introduced by Nira Yuval-Davis
from the right to the city resulting from issues (2000), replace the ideal of universal citizenship
of fear and safety, and the practices of according to the liberal democratic approach.
‘sacredization’ of public spaces. As Purcell argues (2003), this reorientation of
The analysis in this paper is based on research citizenship leads to a proliferation of identities
carried out between 1999 and 2002, in the and loyalties to multiple political communities.
course of which residents of London and One of the alternative voices in the growing
Jerusalem 3 were interviewed about their discourse on traditional and legal forms of
everyday experiences as they relate to comfort, citizenship is the normative notion of “the right
belonging and commitment, as three elements to the city” developed by Lefebvre (Lefebvre,
which together comprise quality of life. They 1991 a, b; Kofman and Labas, 1996). Lefebvre’s
presented their interpretations of these three right to the city constitutes a radical rethinking
components with regard to the various scales of the purpose, definition and content of
which form part of their daily environment: belonging to a political community. Lefebvre
home, building, street, neighbourhood, city does not define belonging to a political
centre, city, and urban parks (Fenster, 2004). community using the terminology of formal
legal citizenship status, but grounds the right
Citizenship and Belonging in the Era to the city in a normative definition based on
of Globalization inhabitance. Those who inhabit the city have
As Purcell notes, radical reconstructions of a right to the city. The right to the city is earned
formal citizenship point to three main changes by living in the city, and belongs to the urban
in its formation (Purcell, 2003). The first is a dweller, whether citizen or stranger.

41
 Lefebvre’s concept of the right to the city emphasis is on the ‘be’ of the right to be
evolves within it two main further rights different rather than the ‘different’ itself. As
(Purcell, 2003): such, his definition does not relate to the
• The right to appropriate urban space in the sense notions of power and control, which are identity
of the right to use: the right of inhabitants and gender-related. Therefore, it does not
to ‘full and complete use’ of urban space in challenge gendered power relations as one of
their everyday lives. It is the right to live in, the dominant factors affecting the potential to
play in, work in, represent, characterize and realize the right to use the city, and the right
occupy urban space in a particular city. to participate in urban life. The gendered aspect
• The right to participation: the right of is not the only aspect absent from Lefebvre’s
inhabitants to take a central role in decision- model. Other identity-related issues and their
making processes surrounding the production affect on the fulfillment of the right to the city
of urban space at any scale, be it the state, also seem to be missing (Mitchell, 2003).7
capital, or any other “actor” which partakes
in the production of urban space.5 The Right to Gendered Use of the
City – The Private and Public in
The specific rights to appropriate and to Lefebvre’s Theory
participate are earned by meeting particular A large amount of work has been dedicated to
responsibilities and obligations, through which different definitions and perspectives of the
each person helps to create the city as an artwork ‘private’ and the ‘public’: their cultural
by performing one’s everyday life in urban orientation (Charlesworth, 1994; Fenster,
spaces.6 This perspective expands the discussion 1999b); their associations (at least the public
on citizenship and views citizenship as a ‘spatial space) with the political sphere (Cook, 1994;
strategy,’ as a spatial process whereby identities, Yuval-Davis, 1997); their roots in Western
boundaries and formations of belonging are liberal thought and different forms of patriarchy
fixed and then deconstructed (Secor, 2004). (Pateman, 1988, 1989); and their feminist
Within this conceptual framework, the first perspectives. In this context, Lefebvre’s right
question that comes to one’s mind is to what to the city clearly refers to the public – to the
extent this notion of the right to the city is use of public spaces, those which create the
sensitive to issues of identity difference. Lefebvre oeuvre – a creative product of and context for
indeed includes the right to difference as a right the everyday lives of its inhabitants. However,
which complements the right to the city (Dikec, the oeuvre, the ‘public,’ is perceived by some
2001). In this he relates to, “the right not to feminist critics as the domain of the white,
be classified forcibly into categories which have upper-middle class heterosexual male. This
been determined by the necessarily means that women in cities, both Western and
homogenizing powers” (1976, in Dikec, 2001: non-Western, simply cannot use public spaces
35). However, as Dikec notes, Lefebvre’s such as streets and parks, especially when alone

42
 The Right to the City
Introduction
and Gendered Everyday Life

(Massey, 1994), and in some cultures cannot which the right to use and the right to
wander around in them at all (Fenster, 1999a). participate is sometimes abused at the level of
Women belong to the ‘private’ sphere. the home because of patriarchal domination,
However, what women’s narratives uncover which for many women around the world
is that their right to use is denied even in the becomes a daily routine. For Amaliya, the order
‘private.’ This means that we must look at the and arrangement of space in her home, which
right to use from both private and public was made without her participation, is what
perspectives in order to fully understand the makes her feel a lack of comfort and belonging.
roots of the abuse of the right to use. Therefore, This experience perhaps reinforces the feminist
the discussion in this paper on the right to use critique of the division between the ‘private’
public spaces and the right to participate in and the ‘public’ inherent in Lefebvre’s ideas.
decision-making must begin at the level of the As feminists argue, these divisions are invoked
home. As the narratives below show, in spite largely to justify female subordination and
of the idealized notion of the ‘home,’ the exclusion, and to conceal the abuse of human
‘private’ - the women’s space, the space of rights at home from the public sphere (Bunch,
stability, reliability and authenticity, the 1995). By isolating the discussion on the right
nostalgia for something lost which is female to the city from the right to the home, Lefebvre
(Massey, 1994) - home can be a contested space creates a rather neutral ‘public’ domain, which
for women, a space of abuse of the rights to ignores gendered power relations as a dominant
use and to participate. Two narratives follow factor in the realization of the right to use, and
which exemplify how the rights to use and which therefore has no relevance to the reality
participate at the level of the home are abused of women’s everyday lives in cities. Obviously,
when women talk about their feelings of this does not mean that women who experience
comfort or discomfort: strong patriarchal control at home also
I feel very uncomfortable and like I don’t belong necessarily suffer from restricted use of the city,
to the home because I live with my partner and but it is important to highlight the strong
he has his own needs and his own tastes, which linkages between the ‘private’ and ‘public’ when
are different from mine. The way the house is evaluating Lefebvre’s notion of the right to the
arranged is not exactly how I would have arranged city.
it. It is too neat. I don’t like the furniture...it These strong links sometimes find contrasting
makes me feel less like I belong. Belonging for expressions, as Fatma’s narrative shows. She
me means to be in my own space, and that I describes a situation of strong patriarchal power
decide what will be in it. Total control. (Amaliya, relations at the level of the home, which makes
30’s, married with one child, Jewish-Israeli (living her feel less comfortable in and less like she
in London), London, 22 August 1999). belongs to the home than to the city. For her,
as her control within her home is very restricted,
This narrative8 in fact illustrates the extent to the city becomes a liberated space:

43
 Home – prison! Although in my room I have importance of connecting the private and public
all I need to ‘get out’ – computer, internet, video, domains in the discussion of the right to use.
T.V. Cables with 50 channels... I have everything, The dominance of patriarchal power relations
but this is not enough. in the private domain obviously affects the
City – freedom, personal freedom, atmosphere, different ways in which women fulfill their right
spring. to the public sphere - to the city. For example,
women cannot always leave their homes and
For Fatma, an unmarried Muslim woman in engage in activities in the public sphere, such
her 40’s who lives with her mother, home is a as studying, let alone partake in political
place of no rights whatsoever. It is a culturally- activities, which usually take place in the public
constructed space in which she feels constrained sphere. Moving onward in the discussion, let
by the strong patriarchal control of the extended us now explore the right to use the city, and
family and local community, while the city is the different formations of belonging in the
where she feels liberated, a place where it is narratives of women.
easy for her to practice her citizenship as a
negotiated process. It is as if the city becomes Everyday Belonging and Gendered
her ‘private’ or ‘intimate’ space, where she is Practices
able to be herself. “These cities,” writes Elizabeth The right to belong inheres in the right to use
Wilson in her book, The Sphinx in the City the city. In fact, the possibilities of the daily
(1991), “brought changes to the lives of women. use of urban spaces are what create a sense of
They represented choice” (p. 125). Here she belonging to the city. De Certeau’s book, The
refers to the new colonial cities of West Africa. Practice of Everyday Life (1984) connects
However, the role of cities in providing choice between these two elements of ‘use’ and
in women’s lives also seems relevant to women ‘belonging.’ Belonging for him is a sentiment,
in other places. which is built up and grows with time out of
The above examples emphasize the necessity everyday life activities and use of spaces. De
of discussing the right to use at the level of Certeau terms it ‘a theory of territorialization’
the home as part and parcel of the discussion through spatial tactics: “Space is a practical place.
of the right to the city. The narratives suggest Thus, the street geometrically defined by urban
that many women, even those who identify planning is transformed into a space by walkers”
themselves as ‘Western’ or part of the majority, (p. 117). For de Certeau, everyday corporal
experience gendered, controlled, power relations activities in the city are part of a process of
at home. However, some narratives show that appropriation and territorialization. He actually
those who experience strong patriarchal power defines the process through which a sense of
control at home may find the city an easier space belonging is established by a repeated fulfillment
in which to negotiate their sense of belonging of the right to use. Belonging and attachment
and citizenship. These narratives emphasize the are built here upon a base of accumulated

44
 The Right to the City
Introduction
and Gendered Everyday Life

knowledge, memory and intimate corporal days and boarding school in front of the Orient
experiences of everyday use, mainly by walking. House. I used this area a lot in my life so I feel
These daily practices of appropriation and re- connected to it (Saida, 30’s, single, Palestinian-
appropriation of space – ‘tactics’ in de Certeau’s Muslim, Jerusalem, 30 December 2000).
terminology – become the means of
encountering and contesting the hegemonic The use of space and knowledge of it is an
notion of citizenship (Secor, 2004). Citizenship expression of the right to use and the right to
is thus viewed as a technique of spatial appropriate public spaces. Knowledge comes
organization in which gendered identities, with intimacy of use and a sense of belonging.
gendered roles and patriarchal powers become Everyday practices are expressions of gendered
markers in negotiations and contestations over role definitions within households. Women
rights and formations of belonging in city experience their daily practices - their strategies
spaces. For de Certeau, citizenship is a strategy and tactics of formulating their frameworks of
which works to define and lay claim over a belonging - when they fulfill their gendered
bounded space of belonging (de Certeau, 1984; roles and responsibilities for maintaining the
Secor, 2004).9 cultural norms of their communities by raising
Claim and appropriation of space are a children or cooking. To perform their social
construct of the everyday walking practices as and familial duties, they must negotiate their
noted by de Certeau, and are part of the spatial practices of citizenship in order to ensure
strategies used to define and position claims that they can realize their right to use, so that
to a specific space. These practices, which are they can go to work, do their shopping, take
repetitive, engage what Viki Bell (1999) defines their children to educational and health services,
as ‘performativity and belonging.’10 and so forth. Here, the right to use public spaces
Using urban spaces for the practice of engages ‘fundamental human rights,’ to food,
belonging and the spatial negotiations of shelter, health and employment: the basic
citizenship results in the sense of spatial necessities of human survival (Kaplan, 1997).
knowledge which women experience in their Here, too, the connection between the ‘private’
environment, a spatial knowledge which comes and the ‘public’ becomes clear. For women to
out of claims to and symbolic appropriation fulfill their duties in the private sphere, they
of spaces: must negotiate their ‘public’ citizenship.
I know the street. I live here. I know the building
– every stone of it. I know it more and more. A Gendered Exclusions from the Right to
very intimate knowledge. (Susana, 30’s, married the City
with one child, Jewish-Israeli, Jerusalem, 13 July The narratives presented so far have exposed
2000). everyday practices in which the right to use has
I feel connected to Salah al-Din and some places been fulfilled to a certain extent within the
in the Old City. I have memories from my school context of women’s traditional gendered roles.

45
However, there are other experiences, which to the city (Valentine, 1998; Pain, 1991;
indicate the violation of the right to use and Madge, 1997).12 Fear and safety can be seen
belong to the city by patriarchal, cultural and as a social as well as a spatial issue connected
religious powers’ construction of public spaces in many cases to the design of urban spaces:
as forbidden. The avenue in my street is scary because there
Legitimized forms of exclusion are usually is only one exit to it – you can’t leave it from
associated with traditional definitions of everywhere. And there are benches where weird
citizenship.11 These definitions are viewed as ‘creatures’ can sit and molest you and you feel
identity-related, in that they dictate which trapped... so it is not so pleasant... if you get
identities are included within the hegemonic into the avenue you are lost... it is really male-
community, and which are excluded. These planned – ‘they’ did it because of the
definitions can have negative effects on women, transportation, but it prevents me from walking
children, immigrants, people of ethnic and racial in the avenue. (Rebecca, 30’s, married, Jewish-
minorities, gays and lesbians and sometimes Israeli, Jerusalem, 3 February 2000).
also on elderly people. In this respect, the
normative definition of the right to the city Rebecca expresses an experience common to
seems to be inclusive with regards to marginal many women when their daily use of the city
groups, such as transnational migrants or people is disrupted because urban spaces are designed
of different identities living in the city, and also in such a way that they become a ‘trap’ for
to women. However, these inclusive practices women, unpleasant and thus unused. They
are not always fulfilled, precisely because of become a ‘planned trap.’ That is, planners
patriarchal domination at the various levels created or designed those spaces without paying
discussed in this paper: home, building, street, sufficient attention to gendered sensitivities, and
neighborhood, city, and so on. In the previous again created unused spaces in the city. Here
section we saw how the dominance of patriarchy women voluntarily restrict their mobility and
abuses the right to use at the level of the home. movement, and reduce their right to use.
At the level of the city, patriarchal practices Resisting these male spatial constructions of
are expressed in feelings of fear and safety, and space can be part of women’s negotiations over
in gendered exclusions from public spaces, in the expansion of their use of public spaces.
accordance with religious and cultural norms. Urban parks have the same association. Some
Both practices create ‘forbidden’ spaces for women perceive parks as ‘hostile male areas’:
women and limit their right to the city. “They are ‘conquered’ areas. I feel angry that
I can’t use them.” (Aziza, 30’s, single, Palestinian
1. Fear and Safety citizen of Israel, Jerusalem, 7 August 2000).
Fear of using public spaces, especially the street, What Aziza expresses here is mainly a sense of
public transportation and urban parks, is what exclusion from public spaces because of fear
prevents many women from fulfilling their right and lack of safety, but perhaps she is also

46
 The Right to the City
Introduction
and Gendered Everyday Life

expressing her anger at the misuse of public Palestinian woman, she acknowledges the
spaces in a way that prevents her from using constraints which exist for women in her
them, because they are controlled and culture, and also for people of her nationality
dominated by men. It seems that fear is a feeling in the current political situation of the
which transforms urban parks into forbidden occupation. The right to the city is therefore
spaces after a certain time of day. Most women fulfilled when the right to difference on the
in both Jerusalem and London avoid using this basis of nationality is also fulfilled, and people
space at night. Indeed, other research (Madge, of different ethnicities, nationalities and gender
1997) shows that fear of urban parks, especially identities can share and use the same urban
at night, is the main common denominator in spaces.
their lack of use, not by women but also by
men. 2. ‘Sacredization’ and Gendered Exclusion
What, then, are safe spaces? These are the as a Result of Religious & Cultural Norms
spaces which allow for practices of citizenship The second example of gendered exclusions in
and the fulfillment of the right to use. Aziza’s the city is expressed through the cultural and
narrative illustrates the characteristics of such religious norms of the body and its
areas: representations. The ‘cultural guards’ of society,
I feel most comfortable in this neighborhood i.e., men and elderly women, dictate the
because it is the most beautiful place in the city boundaries of sacred spaces and privatize them
of Jerusalem. I am a person of constraints: I am so that only those who follow restrictive rules
a woman, Palestinian, alone, [this neighborhood of clothing can use them (Fenster, 1999a). Such
is like] a microcosm – it reminds me of London; symbolic spaces are often the symbol of a
a variety of people... in such places I bloom, like particular national collectivity, its roots and
a fish in the water, this is my sea. I feel very spirits (Yuval-Davis, 1997). Therefore, women’s
protected because this neighborhood is on the spatial mobility is very much dictated, if not
border between West and East Jerusalem and controlled, by these cultural-symbolic meanings
it is the ideal place for me. I lived once in Rehavia of space. In this way, religious and cultural
[a Jewish neighborhood] and felt suffocated. norms create ‘spaces of belonging and dis-
From here I can easily get to the Old City. (Aziza, belonging,’ which then become, for example,
7 August 2000). forbidden and permitted spaces for women in
certain cultures, and certainly have their effects
What Aziza expresses here is precisely what is on practices of ‘the right to use’ as expressions
incorporated in the notion of the right to the of citizenship (Fenster, 1998, 1999b).
city. For her, a safe space is an urban space, In 1999, I wrote about the cultural
which allows her to live as an anonymous construction of space of Arab Bedouin women
person. This is a space which allows her to living in the Negev [Naqab], in the south of
negotiate her rights as a citizen. As a single Israel (Fenster, 1999b, c). There I mentioned

47
the construction of the public/private means that evaluations of the right to use and
dichotomy as forbidden/permitted cultural the right to participate must be included in any
constructs of space, which become restrictions serious discussion of patriarchal power relations,
on Arab Bedouin women’s movement within both in the private and the public spheres, as
their towns. The narratives of women living well as of the extent to which these power
in Jerusalem and London reveal that these relations harm the realization of the right to
terminologies are relevant not only for Arab the city for women, people of ethnic and racial
Bedouin women, but also for women in other minorities, etc. Such a discussion is missing
cities around the world. In Jerusalem, for from Lefebvre’s current conceptualization of
example, most women I talked to, both Jewish the right to the city, an omission which makes
and Palestinian, mentioned the ultra-orthodox this concept rather utopian.
Mea Shearim neighborhood as an area they
associate with discomfort, because they have Notes
to dress according to certain cultural codes.
1 An elaborated version of this paper entitled, “Identity Issues
They therefore avoid walking in this area & Local Governance: Women’s Everyday Life in the City”
because of the sense of threat they feel there. appears in Social Identities, 11(1) (2005), pp. 23-39.
2 Nevertheless, one of the most widely-used interpretations of
(Fenster, 2004). citizenship remains the one Marshall defined (1950, 1975, 1981)
as “full membership in a community”, encompassing civil,
political and social rights. Critiques of this definition have based
Conclusions their arguments on current political and social crises, wherein
This paper exposes the multi-layered nature of the exercise of the power of the nation state is challenged.
3 The reason for the selection of these two cities is that they
the everyday gendered belonging and citizenship reflect contrasting images and symbolisms. Jerusalem is a home
entailed in the Lefebvrian right to the city, and to people of diverse identities, especially in light of its image
as one of the holiest cities in the world; a place of symbolism
presents a feminist critique of this notion. The for Muslims, Christians and Jews. Jerusalem is also a city
basic premise of the paper is that citizenship associated with rigidity, perhaps fanaticism, strict rules and
boundaries, which sometimes find their expressions in spaces
and belonging should be seen as spatial dynamic of sacred belonging. These spaces sometimes exclude women
processes, and not as static definitions which (B’Tselem, 1995; Bollens, 2000; Cheshin, Hutman & Melamed,
1999; Romann & Weingrod 1991; Fenster (forthcoming).
are articulated in women’s everyday lives and London is a city famous for the impacts which globalization
identities. has had on it, and for its cosmopolitanism, openness, and
tolerance, but also for negative and depressing connotations,
The paper highlights the extent to which the especially for non-English people (Fainstein, 1994; Forman,
right to the city, that is, the right to use and 1989; Jacobs, 1996; Pile, 1996; Raban, 1974; Thornley, 1992).
Analyzing the narratives of women living in these two cities
the right to participate, are violated because helps to expose the multi-layered nature of gendered belonging,
of gendered power relations. These violations which is constructed through daily urban practices.
4 This change works in two directions: either upscaling, including
are expressed through women’s daily lives in EU citizenship, which results in new forms of cosmopolitan
Jerusalem and London when they talk about citizenship and global democracy, or downscaling citizenship,
which refers to shifts to subnational scales, such as
their sense of comfort in, belonging and municipalities, neighborhoods, regions, or districts, particularly
commitment to their cities. in cosmopolitan cities.
5 As Dikec (2001) points out, the right to participation entails
To conclude, “the right to the gendered city”

48
 The Right to the City
Introduction
and Gendered Everyday Life

the involvement of inhabitants in institutionalized control over Feminist Perspective.” In Women’s Rights, Human Rights:
urban life including participation in the political life, International Feminist Perspectives, edited by J. Peters and A.
management, and administration of the city. Wolper. New York: Routledge, 1995.
6 For Lefebvre, the city should be thought of as a work of art. — Cheshin, A., B. Hutman and A. Melamed. Separate and
The artist is the collective routines of daily life of urban dwellers Unequal: The Inside Story of Israeli Rule in East Jerusalem.
and inhabitants. The city is a creative product of and context Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
for the everyday lives of its inhabitants. — Charlesworth, Hilary. “What are “Women’s International
7 Mitchell (2003), for example, examined how homeless people Human Rights?” In Human Rights of Women: National and
were excluded from using public spaces through their regulation International Perspectives, edited by R. Cook. Philadelphia:
in such a way that aesthetics are elevated above people’s survival University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994
needs. Anti-homeless laws, he argues, undermine the very right — Cook, Rebecca. “Women’s International Human Rights: The
to the city. This example again demonstrates the sometimes Way Forward.” In Human Rights of Women: National and
opposed and contradictory meanings of citizenship, and the International Perspectives, edited by R. Cook. Philadelphia:
extent to which new formations of belonging can be identified University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994.
when expanding definitions of citizenship. — Cuthbert, Alexander. “The Right to the City: Surveillance,
8 Due to limitations of space, only a few narratives are presented Private Interest and the Public Domain in Hong Kong.” in
as examples in this paper. For an elaborated analysis, see Fenster, Cities 12, no. 5 (1995): 293-310.
2004. — De Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley:
9 Examples of such practices are the different uses of public spaces, University of California Press, 1984.
mainly urban parks, by individuals and groups, which occur — Dikeç, Mustafa. “Justice and the Spatial Imagination.”
as part of casual daily encounters between people or groups: Environment and Planning (A) 33, no. 10 (2001): 1785-1805.
individuals wish to appropriate sections of public settings in — Fainstein, Susan. The City Builders: Property, Politics and
order to achieve intimacy or anonymity, or for social gatherings. Planning in London and New York. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
These appropriations are mostly temporary, but even temporal — Fenster, Tovi. “Ethnicity, Citizenship, Planning and Gender:
appropriations are sometimes negotiations over the rights to the Case of Ethiopian Immigrant Women in Israel.” Gender,
belong, to be part of a community, and to be visible (Fenster, Place and Culture 5, no. 2 (1998): 177-189.
2004). — Fenster, Tovi. “Culture, Human Rights and Planning (as
10 Performativity is the replication and repetition of certain Control) for Minority Women in Israel.” In Gender, Planning
performances, which are associated with the ritualistic practices and Human Rights, edited by T. Fenster, 39-51. London:
through which communities colonize various territories. These Routledge, 1999a.
performances are in fact the realization of the right to use in — Fenster, Tovi, “Space for Gender: Cultural Roles of the
certain spaces, and through them a certain attachment and Forbidden and the Permitted.” Environment and Planning D:
belonging to a place is developed (Leach, 2002). Society and Space 17 (1999b): 227-246.
11 Many critics from both the left and right recognize that — Fenster, Tovi. “On Particularism and Universalism in Modernist
citizenship is by definition about exclusion rather than inclusion Planning: Mapping the Boundaries of Social Change.”
for many people (McDowell, 1999). Plurimondi 2 (1999c): 147-168.
12 Fear of harassment in public spaces cuts across women’s everyday — Fenster, Tovi. The Global City and the Holy City: Narratives
life experiences in both London and Jerusalem. It also cuts on Planning, Knowledge and Diversity. London: Pearson, 2004.
across other identities, such as nationality, marital status, age, — Fenster, Tovi. “Globalization, Gendered Exclusions and City
sexual preference, etc. Planning and Management: Beyond Tolerance in Jerusalem
and London.” Hagar – International Social Science Review
(forthcoming).
Bibliography — Forman, Charlie. Spitalfields: A Battle for Land. London: Hilary
Shipman, 1989.
— B’Tselem. “A Policy of Discrimination: Land Expropriation, — Jacobs, Jane. Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism and the City.
Planning and Building in East Jerusalem.” Jerusalem: B’Tselem, London: Routledge, 1996.
1995. Available at http://www.btselem.org. — Kaplan, Temma. Crazy for Democracy: Women in Grassroots
— Bell, Vikki. “Performativity and Belonging: An Introduction.” Movements. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Theory, Culture & Society 16, no. 2 (1999): 1-10. — Kofman, Eleonore. “Citizenship for Some But Not for Others:
— Bollens, Scott. On Narrow Ground: Urban Policy and Ethnic Spaces of Citizenship in Contemporary Europe.” Political
Conflict in Jerusalem and Belfast. Albany: State University of Geography 14, no. 2 (1995): 121–137.
New York Press, 2000. — Kofman E. and E. Lebas, “Lost in Transposition: Time, Space,
— Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment and the City.” In Henri Lefebvre, Writings on Cities, 3-60.
of Taste. London: Routledge, 1984. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1996.
— Bunch, Charlotte. “Transforming Human Rights from a — Leach, Neil. “Belonging: Towards a Theory of Identification

49
 with Space.” In Habitus: A Sense of Place, edited by J. Hillier Jama’a 10 (2003): 69-109 (Hebrew).
and E. Rooksby, 281-298. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. — Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference.
— Lefebvre, Henri. Critique of Everyday Life. London: Verso, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.
1991a. — Young, Iris Marion. “Polity and Group Difference: A Critique
— Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell, of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship.” In The Citizenship
1991b. Debates: A Reader, edited by G. Shafir, 263-290. Minneapolis:
— Lister, Ruth. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. New York: New University of Minnesota Press, 1998.
York University Press, 1997. — Yuval-Davis, Nira. Gender & Nation. London: Sage
— McDowell, Linda. “City Life and Difference: Negotiating Publications, 1997.
Diversity,” In Unsettling Cities, edited by J. Allen, D. Massey — Yuval-Davis, Nira. “Citizenship, Territoriality and the Gendered
and M. Pryke, 95-136. London: Routledge, 1999. Construction of Difference.” In Democracy, Citizenship and
— Madge, Clare. “Public Parks and the Geography of Fear.” the Global City, edited by E. Isin, 171-188. New York:
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 88, no. 3 (1997): Routledge, 2000.
237-250.
— Marshall, Thomas Humphrey. Citizenship and Social Class.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950.
— Marshall, Thomas Humphrey. Social Policy in the Twentieth
Century. London: Hutchinson, 1975.
— Marshall, Thomas Humphrey. The Right to Welfare and Other
Essays. London: Heinemann, 1981.
— Massey, Doreen. Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1994.
— Mitchell, Don. The Right to the City: Social Justice and The
Right for Public Space. New York: The Guilford Press, 2003.
— Moser, Caroline. Gender, Planning and Development. London:
Routledge, 1993.
— Pain, Rachel. “Space, Sexual Violence and Social Control.”
Progress in Human Geography 15, no. 4 (1991): 415-431.
— Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Contract. Cambridge: Polity, 1998.
— Pateman, Carole. The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism
and Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity, 1989.
— Pile, Steve. The Body and the City. London: Routledge, 1996.
— Purcell, Mark. “Citizenship and the Right to the Global City:
Reimagining the Capitalist World Order.” International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research 27, no. 3 (2003): 564-590.
— Raban, Jonathan. Soft City. London: Harvill Press, 1974.
— Romann, M. and A. Weingrod. Living Together Separately.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
— Sandercock, Leonie. “When Strangers Become Neighbours:
Managing Cities of Difference.” Planning Theory and Practice
1, no. 1 (2000): 13-30.
— Secor, Anna. “‘There Is an Istanbul That Belongs to Me’:
Citizenship, Space and Identity in the City.” Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 94, no. 2 (2004): 352-368.
— Sibley, David. Geographies of Exclusion. London: Routledge,
1995.
— Thornley, Andy (ed.). The Crisis of London. London: Routledge,
1992.
— Valentine, Gill. “Food and the Production of the Civilised
Street.” In Images of the Street: Planning Identity and Control
in Public Space, edited by N. R. Fyfe, 192-204. London:
Routledge, 1998.
— Wilson, Elizabeth. The Sphinx in the City. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1991.
— Yacobi, Haim. “On Everyday Life in the Mixed City of Lod.”

50