Identities Are Spatially Constructed

GE3241 Essay Assignment Woon Wei Seng A0002916N
1
NUS/2012-2013 Semester 1/GE3241/Essay Assignment/Woon Wei Seng (A0002916N)
Identities are spatially constructed. Discuss in relation to the
identities of age, disability, gender and / or sexuality.

Introduction
Space and identity are two key concepts that undergird the study of social geography.
Social geography research foregrounds the interweaving of space and identity, particularly
differences in identity and its variation and construction across space (Panelli, 2004). The
term identity should be defined to properly interrogate it in space.
Identity, which can be embodied (in the self or Other) or attached to places, is about
both recognition and difference (Panelli, 2004:138). Identity is relational: ones identity
(the self) is constructed in relation to the binary Other (which one is not), and the self-other
is mutually reconstituted (Browne, 2009). This self/other construction of identity (Panelli,
2004:140) exhibits an implicit power asymmetry, as the normal self labels the Other
deviant, and this power relation matters in constructing identity spatially (Sibley, 2009:85).
Identities are socially constructed, and one is socialized to practice identity through
bodies, language, dress, actions and spaces (Panelli, 2004:142-3). The first four modes
constitute performativity of identity (Browne, 2009), which are then acted out in (as spatial
practice) and interact with space. One adopts multiple identities, which are spatially and
temporally contingent (ibid).
In discussing the spatial construction of identities, I focus on sexual identities to argue
that space and identity are mutually constituted: the identity of the body is spatially
constructed, while space is shaped by the identities of bodies situated within that space.
2
Both places and identities are socially constructed (Bell et al, 1994; Panelli, 2004), but
space is implicated in constructing an identity, as where one is affects what identity to
convey and how others identify oneself (Panelli, 2004:142). While ones identity is
influenced by space, the identities of people within that space contribute to the spaces
meaning and character. A woman in Geylang
1
might be seen as a prostitute while a man
visiting Play
2
believed to be homosexual, misconstrued or otherwise. Yet these places come
about as defined by the identities of many people within them.

Sexuality constructed in space, space constructed by sexuality
Sexuality is fundamental to and negotiated in daily life (Panelli, 2004). Foucault asserts
that sexual identities are produced within discourse and wider power relations, rather
than biological (Howell, 2009:121). Everyday performativity of such sexual identities is
situated in space: space is sexualized; spaces affect our sexual identities and our
experience and negotiation of these spaces (Panelli, 2004:112). In particular these identities,
as the product of spatial practices such as lived experience, are negotiated in spaces of
encounter between (the) self and Other (Howell, 2009:120). Sexuality is embodied,
meaning that the body is a site and space of sexual identity, with this identity shaped by
personal decisions and the expectations and surveillance of wider institutions and norms
(Panelli, 2004:126).
Space influences identity, with different identities performed in different spatial and
temporal settings. Bell et al (1994:40) describes how lesbians adjust their identities

1
Geylang is Singapores red light district.
2
In Tanjong Pagar, Singapore, Play is a nightclub frequented by gay men: though not reflected in its description
on its website, it organizes thematic events targeted at gay men (Play Club, 2012).
3
accordingly: whether at home with parents (dressing less provocatively) or in a
butch/femme pub (dressing as a butch to attract more femmes). In the butch/femme pub,
women new to the scene were expected to adopt either role (ibid). Concurrently, identity
influences space, since butch/femme dressing indicates membership in the pub, creating a
lesbian space. Spaces are produced through embodied social practices (Brown et al,
2007:2) that are enacted repeatedly and performed through the way in which (practices)
are inhabited, acted and spoken (Gerodetti and Bieri, 2006:73), suggesting the production
of space through the performance of sexual identities. For instance, changing identity
performances influence the home space: lesbians de-dyke
3
their home in advance for
heterosexual visitors (Johnston and Valentine, 1995, cited in Panelli, 2004:125).
Sexuality was primarily associated with the private space of the home, but today it is
significantly evident in the public space of the street (Howell, 2009). Non-normative forms
of sexuality, such as prostitution or homosexuality, are especially associated with the
underground: invisible and marginal (ibid: 122). Sexualized space is evident for those of
non-hegemonic identities when heterosexual displays of affection in public are considered
acceptable while any expression of homosexual identity is (perceived) out of place
(Gerodetti and Bieri, 2006:72). Sexualized spaces are hence actually straight spaces (ibid)
defined vis--vis heterosexuality and heteronormativity.

Heterosexual/Heteronormative space
If space is not made gay or lesbian, it must be straight (Bell et al, 1994:32, emphasis
in the original). Heterosexual space is everywhere, with heteronormativity enshrined in

3
Dyke is slang for lesbian (often derogatory), hence to de-dyke would be to render less lesbian.
4
society and space (Hubbard, 2008). However heterosexual space does not pre-exist the
performance of heterosexuality (Valentine, 2002:154); it is actively constructed by
performing identities that relate to sex, gender and desire (Bell et al, 1994:44-45) and
naturalized through repetition and regulation (Valentine, 1996:146). Such a
heteronormative construction of space excludes the sexual Other (Hubbard, 2008), since
one is expected to be heterosexual or behave as such or else be out-of-place (Lim,
2004:1767). Such exclusion in space only enhances further the Others feeling of different
identity, exemplified in discussing the home and public space.
The home space, though often valorized by homosexuals as a private place to freely
express their sexuality (Valentine, 2002:153), is primarily the space of heteronormativity, by
reinforcing the (nuclear) family (Valentine, 1996; Bell, 2009). Often the normative space of
the heterosexual married couple, children growing up with non-heterosexual identities
(often) experience (the) home as a site of oppression and even exclusion (Bell, 2009:116).
Their non-normative identities are shaped in opposition to their marginalization at home.
The public space is often closet space, since homosexuals cannot engage in public
displays of affection due to the pressure of heteronormativity (ibid: 117). Yet public space
is not restricted to heterosexuals (Bell et al, 1994); it is often where hegemonic identities
are challenged. Cruising
4
makes use of streets, parks and other public spaces as sites of
interpersonal intimacy (ibid). The public toilet in a park could be family space
5
to
heterosexuals yet a cottage
6
to homosexuals (Panelli, 2004). Heteronormative conceptions

4
A (mainly) gay practice (Bell, 2009:117), cruising is the act of deliberately seeking a sexual partner in a
public place, often for anonymous sex (Miller, 2009:302).
5
The park would serve as a place for families to bring their children to visit, play and enjoy greenery.
6
It is a public toilet where gay men pick up partners for the purpose of sexual activity (Miller, 2009:302).
5
of space, while constituting heterosexual identity (Brown et al, 2007), suppress expressions
of non-normative identity, leading to contestation to create spaces of resistance.

Spaces of resistance
Everyday spaces are infused with heteronormativity, defining heterosexual identities.
Homosexuals contest these dominant identities inscribed in space by creating spaces of
resistance that reclaim space for themselves. Often this is possible (only) in specific...
spaces (Bell et al, 1994:32), usually consigned to the margins of the ghetto and the back
street bar and preferably, the closeted or private space of the home (Valentine, 1996:147).
Nevertheless in these spaces of resistance non-normative identities become more visible,
problematizing heteronormativity, challenging power relations and allowing the constitution
of these alternative identities in spaces however temporary or marginal.
Miller (2009:302) describes the historical gay ghetto, a cluster of private spaces
commercial establishments
7
and public spaces known for cruising and cottaging, as
clandestine and defining gay identity to those in the know and within the space. Valentine
(1997, cited in Panelli, 2004:7) describes lesbian separatists making rural female-only
communities as alternative society to create a positive social space to counter lesbians
past (negative) experiences. These spaces of resistance, while marginal, permit freedom
to not act straight (Miller, 2009:304-5) and to openly express gay/lesbian identity.
Unfortunately, these identities become fostered in an exclusive space that further
emphasizes their identity as the Other (Valentine, 2002).

7
Such spaces would include private homes, clubs, cafs bars (and) hotels (Miller, 2009:302).
6
The open challenging of heteronormativity in public space arises through ad-hoc
public events like Pride marches that temporarily queer streets to disrupt everyday
heterosexualized space (Browne, 2009:42), exposing heteronormativity by spotlighting
heterosexuality as the publicly acceptable identity while expecting homosexuality to be
private, invisible and unseen (Panelli, 2004:130). Pink Dot
8
in Singapore mimics these
Pride marches through a one-day gathering of Singaporeans, straight or gay, in Hong Lim
Park to activate the hidden-from-sight spaces of LGBTs in Singapore and celebrate the
freedom to love for all (Tan, 2011: 65). Participants are dressed in pink, which symbolizes
the melding of Singapores national flag colours
9
to represent nationhood, citizenship and
inclusiveness (ibid: 66). Such acts in public space consciously re-appropriate space for
(homosexuals) in otherwise hostile cities (Browne, 2009:42), allowing them to claim urban
space to celebrate their identity (Panelli, 2004:130). While these alternative identities
temporarily yet powerfully construct queer public space, these spaces permit the
challenging of hegemonic identities and the construction of their own different identities.

Conclusion
Sexuality its regulation, norms, institutions and desires cannot be understood
without understanding the spaces through which it is constituted, practiced and lived
(Brown et al, 2007:4). The importance of space to sexuality, and to identities generally,
cannot be further emphasized. Spaces and identities may be socially constructed through

8
Pink Dot was conceptualised by Roy Tan, inspired by the Pride parades of other countries (Tan, 2011:65). It
was first organized in May 2009 at an open space in Hong Lim Park, in the heart of Singapore, where 1000
people gathered in pink to form the human formation of a pink dot to advocate the idea of the freedom to
love for all (ibid), whether straight or gay. This event now takes place annually, with more participants with
each passing year: this years Pink Dot in June saw a record turnout of 15 000 (Pink Dot SG, 2012).
9
Singapores national flag is coloured red and white.
7
norms governing social relations, but the implication of space in the construction of identity
cannot be neglected. The agency of people to choose their identities, vary their
performance of these identities and challenge these norms is all carried out in and affected
by space. Yet space, beyond being a mere container for society, is actively being shaped by
the agency of these same people.
Through exploring heteronormative space and how those of non-normative identities
challenge these hegemonic conceptions of sexuality in spaces of resistance, it is evidenced
how identity and space are mutually constituted and reinforced: identities are spatially
constructed; spaces are constructed and invested with peoples identities within that space.
[1500 words]

8
References
Bell, D. (2009) Heteronormativity, in Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.) International
Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, pp. 115-119.
Bell, D., Binnie, J., Cream, J. and Valentine, G. (1994) All Hyped Up and No Place to Go,
Gender, Place and Culture, 1, 1, 31-47.
Brown, G., Browne, K. and Lim, J. (2007) Introduction, or Why Have a Book on Geographies
of Sexualities?, in Browne, K., Lim, J. and Brown, G. (eds.) Geographies of Sexualities:
Theory, Practices and Politics, Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 1-18.
Browne, K. (2009) Queer Theory/Queer Geographies, in Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.)
International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, pp. 39-45.
Gerodetti, N. and Bieri, S. (2006) (Female hetero)Sexualities in Transition: Train Stations as
Gateways, Feminist Theory, 7, 1, 69-87.
Howell, P. (2009) Sexuality, in Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of
Human Geography, Elsevier, pp. 119-124.
Hubbard, P. (2008) Here, There, Everywhere: The Ubiquitous Geographies of
Heteronormativity, Geography Compass, 2, 3, 640-658.
Lim, K. F. (2004) Where Love Dares (Not) Speak Its Name: The Expression of Homosexuality
in Singapore, Urban Studies, 41, 9, 1759-1788.
Miller, V. (2009) Gay Geographies, in Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.) International
Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, pp. 303-308.
Panelli, R. (2004) Social Geographies: From Difference to Action, London, Sage.
Pink Dot SG. (2012) Pink Dot SG: Supporting the Freedom to Love [Online] Available at:
<http://pinkdot.sg/> [Accessed 1 October 2012].
Play Club. (2012) PLAY [Online] Available at: <http://www.playclub.com.sg/> [Accessed 2
October 2012].
Sibley, D. (2009) Self-Other, in Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of
Human Geography, Elsevier, pp. 85-88.
Tan, Y. H. B. (2011) Joining the Pink Dots in the Little Red Dot: Tracing Gay Tracks in
Singapore, M.A. National University of Singapore.
Valentine, G. (1996) (Re)negotiating the Heterosexual Street: Lesbian Productions of Space,
in Duncan, N. (ed.) Bodyspace: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender & Sexuality,
London, Routledge, pp. 146-155.
9
Valentine, G. (2002) Queer Bodies and the Production of Space, in Richardson, D. and
Seidman, S. (eds.) Handbook of Lesbian and Gay Studies, London, Sage, pp. 145-160.

Identities Are Spatially Constructed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identities Are Spatially Constructed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GE3241 Essay Assignment Woon Wei Seng A0002916N

You might also like