Space is not limited to a stagnant definition of one tangible thing, rather it is a concept that is ever changing and being redefined by the groups that use it, the powers that influence it, and the events that take place in it. To look at space, you must first look at objectivity. Objectivity, while a nice thought, is rarely achieved in space. Each space that we exist in has at one point been engineered or designed. The intent may be as a community gathering area, a place of education, or an ethnic neighborhood. For the purpose of this argument, space will be defined as a fluid area, tangible or intangible, that fosters interactions between persons with an intent imposed by the creator. Social space is spaces with an emphasis on interaction. With space’s constant change in meaning, size and dynamics, it offers a range of ways to view it and its uses. Another important feature of space is its use as a tool against the oppressed. Minorities and women see space extremely different than white people and men. As a tool of oppression, the intent behind space holds a powerful force. By critically examining minority, gendered and segregated spaces one can examine how social space has transformed from the ordinary to an oppressive tool used by the powerful.
The history of segregation in the United States is rich and the examples of it are numerous. From the plantations of the south during times of slavery, where African American slaves congregated in dilapidated shacks to find the joy in their horrid situations, to the internment camps of World War II where we systematically imprisoned Asian Americans under fears of domestic attacks, the white majority in America has designed social spaces for the oppression of minorities. These examples are just two of the blatant racism that has plagued our nation. Born and raised in the northern suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, I have seen spaces that are used to oppress minorities in that community. I am from Whitefish Bay, a community that is predominantly white. To the west, just passed I-43, you will find North Milwaukee. This area is notorious for its violence, run down state, and poverty. It is almost entirely made up of African Americans, 87% to be exact, and has become notorious in Milwaukee for its segregation (Old North Milwaukee…). The north side of Milwaukee is last in almost all demographic categories. The area ranks last in safety, education and employment (Areavibes). It also leads all of Milwaukee in violent crimes, with 2,164 crimes per 100,000 residents (Demographics and data). The north side is responsible for Milwaukee’s negative reputation. While the residents may be at fault for this behavior and crime, this is not a life they chose themselves. Milwaukee ranks among the most segregated cities in the nation almost every year, and it’s not something that the city hides. Ask most Milwaukeeans regarding race in the city and they will likely send you in a certain direction based on the race you’re asking about. Looking for Hispanic communities? Head to the south side. Looking for white communities? Then the upper east side or the northern suburbs like Shorewood and Whitefish Bay is the place to go. Looking for African American communities, the north side likely comes to mind. The segregation of races in Milwaukee was not natural or coincidental, but rather thought out and planned. It was executed using tools like red lining and racial covenants that prevented minorities from living in certain areas. Red lining is a common tool that has been used in cities all over the nation. It is a practice where maps are made designating the risk levels for mortgages. In Milwaukee, the colors ranged from best to worst in green, blue, yellow and red. Green being the best most desirable areas, to red, the most undesirable areas based on things like housing quality, industry, and even racial minority presence. The red line map for Milwaukee includes a red zoned area with the risk being “negro slum residents” (Powers). Once these areas where marked as being of lower status or wealth, it built on its self as people began to move in. Those who couldn’t afford mortgages or were of low income, could only find housing in these red areas. Additionally, due to discriminatory practices in the banking and housing industries, banks would often restrict loans or relators would limit homebuyers to certain areas based on their race. Next, a housing covenant is a term in many housing deeds limiting who can live on that property. In many areas, mostly wealthy white areas, housing covenants were implemented to prevent minorities from living there. These racial covenants would often specifically state that people of color or nonwhite residents were not allowed to reside there. They were created in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and continued on to about the turn of the century (Powers). With the use of these practices, red lining and racial covenants, minorities in Milwaukee were restricted from living in certain areas, and left to live in others. Theses spaces are designed to oppress minorities. In racially segregated communities, you are also likely to find other tools of oppression. North Milwaukee struggles with a number of issues that are common in oppressed communities like food deserts, poor schools and lack of access to consistent public transit. In these communities, access to healthy options in grocery stores or gardens is next to none. As defined by the Food Empowerment Project, an organization that works on getting access to food to all peoples, food deserts are, “geographic areas where residents’ access to affordable, healthy food options (especially fresh fruits and vegetables) is restricted or nonexistent due to the absence of grocery stores within convenient travelling distance” (Food Deserts). These deserts are a product of little development. We see schools in these areas receive less funding than other areas, setting students in these areas up for failure. In the city of Milwaukee, roughly 65% of African Americans graduate high school in 2007, while comparatively, 76% of white residents do (Demographics and Data). Once again, these communities are designed to disadvantage minority groups. It is systematic in efforts and execution and has lasting effects that are seen decades later. This type of disadvantage is also applied to women, and even more so the trans community.
Women, while impacted too by their age, race, sexuality and religion, are often discriminated against based off their gender. The power imbalance has been around since the age of time in a place where men were deemed superior due to physical features. Relative to all of time, it has only been recently that we have seen a fight for equality from women. Today, as the wage gap is slowly closing, women still find themselves oppressed in social spaces. These spaces are ones where it is assumed that men have the power. Spaces like corporate offices, public areas, and college campuses leave women at a disadvantage. To start, corporate America has been one of the most contentious battlegrounds for women seeking equality. As men have dominated the workforce for decades, the integration of women in positions of authority is a presumed threat to the way of business. Women are often scrutinized about everything from their work ethic, to the clothing they wear. Today, a woman who aggressively pursues her career is labeled as manly, a woman who takes time for her family is labeled as soft, and a woman who attempts at having a family and a career is labeled as asking for too much. With the current wage gap at 80%, that is women who do the same job as men are paid 80% of what men are paid, it is a fundamental disadvantage for women in the work place (Miller). Next, looking at public spaces, their connotations change drastically as day turns to night. Part of the male female power imbalance is the power of violence. Where a man may have little hesitations to walk through a city park at night, a woman will often avoid it at all costs. City parks, alleys, areas of seclusion have become spaces that disadvantage women. When the threat of potential violence is perceived, it has powerful effects on the actions of the subject. Our media reinforces this notion with storylines revolving around violent crimes against women or depicting these spaces as dangerous. It’s not just the media too, it’s become a normality in the life of a woman. We teach our young women to fear these spaces. Spaces that during the day, may be full of activity, life and vibrancy, but at night become voids of dangers. We are a society where we place the responsibilities of safety on our women rather than placing the responsibility of respect to our men. This may be most evident on college campuses. Before our women go off to college, they are often taught and given certain items. We teach our young women to never walk home alone, never leave your drink unattended, and other preventative measures to ensure their safety. In addition to that, women are often given items such as mace, whistles and even Tasers to protect themselves from predators. These fears are not irrational. The statistics of sexual assault on college campuses is staggering. Today, 1 in 4 women will be the victim of sexual assault on a college campus. It is also believed that up to 95% of sexual assaults on campuses are not reported (Realities of Sexual…). Suddenly, we have become desensitized to the dangers that are on our campuses. It is much like public spaces, areas that are dangerous due to the time of day. These are only made worse due to drinking and rape culture being perpetuated in movies and parties. By not acknowledging the true problem at hand, the problem of placing responsibility on our women rather than men, we are oppressing women. This is evident in the blatant discrimination of women in the workplace, with high standards but less pay, and in the spaces women avoid due to violence and on our college campuses, where sexual assault is nearly expected. Men have continued to hold power over women by not addressing these issues and doing little to take responsibility on our own. It goes unnoticed as it is not as easy to see, but social spaces are often stacked against women.
Social spaces, while ideally diverse in race, age, gender, etc. are hardly ever truly diverse. More often than not, our social spaces of today are uniform and segregated. Segregation has long been a powerful tool of oppression. From slavery to the civil rights movement and beyond, segregation has been sought after with intent. Many may argue that inherently as humans we “self-segregate” as to live with people who have the same qualities that we do. This, while reasonable in rationale, is hardly ever the case. Take the Pruit-Igoe public housing complex in St. Louis. Designed to be a post-modern low income housing development, it turned a diverse neighborhood into one of segregation. People who were displaced by the complex were moved into it upon completion, in hopes to have successful communities within buildings, organizers took the once diverse neighborhood and segregated it based on race. This was aimed at solving social problems and promoting cohesion, but instead resulted with increased crime and drug use (Moberg, 296). Segregation ultimately lead to more problems and was imposed on the residents. Look again to Milwaukee, specifically Whitefish Bay. Once a sundown town, the village retains many of the notions of that era. Look at the dispersion of race in the village and you’ll find that most minorities are limited to certain areas or the outskirts. This is no accident and is part of Whitefish Bay retaining its image. This image is a wealthy white community with low crime and great schools. Nowhere in its image is it trying to be diverse or celebrate differences among residents. This notion of segregation is seen in the mentally of the police department, where racial profiling is not admitted, but is used to systematically maintain a white neighborhood. Segregation creates spaces in which certain groups are not welcomed. It again comes down to power. It is more often than not, the white majority that does the segregating, imposing its power on the minority.
Social spaces in the ideal world offer limitless capabilities to progress humanity. They range from neighborhoods to markets to street corners, and in each place when critically analyzed, the majority holds control and uses them as ways to retain power. Minority groups can be racial, of certain gender or sexuality, hold certain religious beliefs, or any other characteristic not in line with the majority. Today we find the majority to be white, heterosexual, Christian men, just as it has been for centuries. It is only now, with the emergence of Critical Race Theory, Feminism and other thought provoking ideas that have challenged the status quo. Oppression takes many forms and has various tools to get the job done. Social space is one of those tools. Dynamic in nature, it can be molded to the need of the powerful. By acknowledging it as more than a mere design flaw, we can begin to construct social spaces that promote diversity and safety. This is most evident in places like Kelly Ingram Park in Birmingham, Alabama. The park, geographically centered in a region that saw some of the most impactful civil rights events, aims at educating those who enter it about the events of the civil rights movement (Schein, 8-9). It promotes unity and diversity and is a designed space. The thought that is put into its design is seen in its unique atmosphere. No more a tool of oppression, the space can be used by the masses in a state of equality. Social space is a concept that is now on the forefront of change. The majority holds power over these spaces until change is achieved. Social space should be a lot of things, but oppressive should not be one of them.