UNDERSTANDING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL STIGMA OF GENDERED SPACES In the book “Irigaray for Architects”, Peg Rawes explains, French philosopher, Luce Irigaray’s symbolistic and metaphorical views of gendered spaces that situate extreme measures of feministic ideologies. Irigaray aims to empower women by promoting the causes for the creation of gendered spaces to be viewed as a benefit for women, in other words demoting the patriarchal society2. A female’s biological conformation may be a factor of danger in certain spatial arrangements but to Irigaray, if these factors are viewed as a psychological power, the so-called gendered spaces would not influence a woman’s desired behaviour, character, or power within a given space. Referring to her metaphorical views of feminine power and capability, “a woman is never closed/shut up in one volume… unless the womb is reduced [by him, by him in her] in phallic appropriation” (Irigaray, 1997, p.65). While arguing that the notions supporting gendered spaces emerged due to a patriarchal society hence determining or concealing a woman’s character because of phallocentric cultures, she further states that “an individual’s physical and biological characteristics [therefore] represented a fundamental and positive difference between themselves and the dominant patriarchal notion” (Rawes, 2007, p.17). One could argue Irigaray’s ideology of gendered spaces through Jacques Lacan’s theoretical framework of the female subject; and Sigmund Freud’s beliefs upon the ‘patriarchal and phallocentric society’. While Irigaray’s views are focused on the metaphorical and psychological notions within society, Lacan has used a more literal approach towards defining subjects and hence creating gendered spaces based on the physical and biological conformation of a subject. “As Lacan said… there is no symbolization of the woman’s sexual organ as such… The feminine sexual organ has the character of an absence, a void, a hole…” (Willette, 2013). Lacan has combined such definition of subjects with the notion of existence to conclude that “woman cannot be; she cannot exist” (Willette, 2013). It is understandable that to Lacan a subject’s physical features determine their character hence, according to this determination, the physical features of an environment and/or space must correspond to the subject’s physicality. Therefore, as Irigaray stated that the notion of gendered spaces emerged due to views of a patriarchal society3, the spatial segregation as internal and external spaces or public and private spaces are subconsciously but directly correlated with a subject’s biological sexuality. In architecture, the idea of gendered spaces and the inequality within, started post 1945 when town planning was focused on area zoning which resulted in “stereotypical ideas about man’s use of the environment” (Boys, 1984). Most domestic and housing sectors, in urban towns, were in close proximity to leisurely facilities. Meanwhile, the workplace hub was located further away from domestic zones hence, “the mobility of women is restricted unless they live in an area with a very good public transport network” (Boys, 1984). Therefore, urban cities, by default, support a patriarchal society which cultivates gendered spaces by allowing men easier access while limiting a woman’s.
2For
Irigaray, a patriarchal society is one in which men hold authority or positions of power over women due to ‘capabilities’ and stereotypically known domestic ‘role of women’. In other words, can be viewed as ‘woman’s place in a man’s world’. 3 Lacan’s view of a patriarchal society, unlike Irigaray’s, does not take in to account the existence or presence of women. This in turn creates a hierarchy in power due to the existence of men and non-existence of women because of her physicality/ sexuality. Page | 3
