We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2017
In post-2009 Iran, not only is space gendered for a variety of reasons ranging from customs to state intervention, but also public space has become less accessible and secluded for security purposes. To securitize the state or replace a sense of trust with that of suspicion, states blend the gendering of space with the architecture of seclusion. In the United States, for instance, the separation of males and females in the prison industrial complex includes seclusion of bodies and often subjects gender-nonconforming people, immigrants, and those with HIV to disproportionate levels of physical danger. In Iran, architectural adjustments with the aim of seclusion have significantly increased since the 2009 protests. In Tehran, for instance, shisha shops in the mountains, which used to be common sites of leisure, are randomly raided by security forces. As a result, participating in such spaces means having to hide in the back areas to engage in an activity that not too long ago was legal. It follows that the combination of gendering and seclusion of space disrupts the formation of organic relationships and generates real, falsely stimulated, and contested intimacies. How we approach intimacies in this complicated situation determines in important ways the impact that this new spatial scheme will have on our research agenda, analysis, and perhaps even safety.
1 Stanley, Eric A. and Smith, Nat, eds., Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex (Baltimore, Md.: AK Press, 2011)Google Scholar.
2 Lowe, Lisa, The Intimacies of Four Continents (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Stoler, Ann, “Imperial Debris: Reflections on Ruins and Ruination,” Cultural Anthropology 23 (2008): 191–219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Povinelli, Elizabeth A., “Notes on Gridlock: Genealogy, Intimacy, Sexuality,” Public Culture 14 (2002): 215–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Baldwin, James, Giovanni's Room (New York: Laurel Book, 1956), 10 Google Scholar.
6 Yanow, Dvora, “Dear Author, Dear Reader: The Third Hermeneutic in Writing and Reviewing Ethnography,” in Political Ethnography: What Immersion Contributes to the Study of Power, ed. Schatz, Edward (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 275–302 Google Scholar.
7 Freedman, Estelle, “Separatism as Strategy: Female Institution Building and American Feminism, 1870–1930,” Feminist Studies 5 (1979): 512–29Google Scholar; Biagini, Erika, “The Egyptian Muslim Sisterhood between Violence, Activism and Leadership,” Mediterranean Politics 22 (2016): 35–53 Google Scholar.
8 Schwedler, Jillian, “The Third Gender: Western Female Researchers in the Middle East,” Political Science & Politics 39 (2006): 425–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 Rivetti, Paola and Saeidi, Shirin, “What Is So Special About Field Research in Iran? Doing Fieldwork in Religiously Charged Authoritarian Settings,” in Doing Political Science Research in the Middle East and North Africa: Methodological and Ethical Challenges, ed. Clark, Janine and Cavatorta, Francesco (London: Oxford University Press), under reviewGoogle Scholar.
10 The notion of “confession” is particularly helpful in examining how this process happens. Foucault, Michel, “The Confession of the Flesh,’” in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, ed. Gordon, Colin (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980), 215–17Google Scholar.
