A Learning Review of Wangui Kimari and Peris Jones 2018, Security Beyond Men: Women & Their Everyday Security Apparatus in Mathare, Nairobi

‘There must be some middle ground between denying male violence and overestimating it to the extent that it makes women seem immobile’

Luise White,1990.

Meet Wangui Kimari and Peris Jones, two scholars in two separate continents (I assume) one in Cape Town, South Africa and the other in Oslo, Norway tackling Security Beyond Men: Women & Their Everyday Security Apparatus in Mathare, Nairobi(2018).

An ingenious paper, published in the Urban Studies Journal 2018, tackling the unrealistic realities created and framed for everyday living, the easily biased systems that favor some and betray others, and most of all the everyday truth of humanity’s ties to patriarchy-power.

The review you are about to read is my take on the paper mostly from a learning perspective. I strongly encourage and recommend that you read Kimari and Jones’s paper yourself maybe you will find something I missed or did not tackle.

Just from the title, which captivated me and made me need to read it right away, was to explore What is Security Beyond Men?

More questions that popped in my head the more I read Wangui and Jones’s paper were:

Is (In)Security discourse androcentric?

Is there a plurality of actors in Security provision?

Is security offered only by men or are men the only ones recognized for security provision?

What role do women play in (In)security, their own and that of their environs?

What is (In)Security discourse in Urban Informal Settlements in Nairobi?

What fuels (In)Security? What is security? Who defines security?

This 2018 paper, with key focused themes, offers a frank look at (In)Security discourse and its positions of framing, the gendered focus in (In)Security and (In)Security in informal urban settlements making it a MUST read for anyone looking for a great informative read on these key themes anchored in Mathare, Nairobi. Also, for those directly working or involved in (In)Security, gender, social order, city studies, urbanization and informal settlements discourses or associated works.

Why bother?

Whether you are in the above-mentioned interest categories or not I do believe the aspects I have outlined below should be common enquiry for all of us. Common basic knowledge, if you will.

Wangui and Jones introduce the paper’s wider contribution of understanding (In)Security in the globalized, urban landscape and realities that we currently exist and hustle in; the rising urban security and ‘secure urbanization’ concerns that are entangled in the ever-increasing gaps of inequality, crime, the dethroning of state-centered security by non-state mechanisms, and urban renewal and urban land conflicts, because at the end of the day it always comes back to land. True possession as is believed.

They then bring in the continuous and usual partial and myopic focus of (In)Security discourse about and in Africa’s urban spaces on the role & identity of men and women within these spaces, always missing the basic and clear fact that there are and have always been multiple actors in the provision of In(Security).

Article Spoilers: Let’s Deep dive Just a Little

Our Approach to Discourse/Scholarship needs to be multifaceted as is everyday living:

A key issue frequently raised by Wangui and Jones throughout the paper is the framing of everyday realities and the point from which we frame these everyday realities as scholars/academicians/researchers, policy makers/public workers and overall definers, describers, observers and authors. Words have power especially in discourse and policy as these very words define and create responses to these defined realities.

Hence, how we define realities, how we observe and/or experience them, and where we are observing and/or experiencing these realities from should be given a critical look, a very deep bias check should be in order. Or if it is not your reality you are defining widen the scope and involve the direct and indirect persons and facets related to that reality not just what you want that reality to be, what you want it to say. Life is multi-faceted hence our approach to discourse should always be multi-faced, it’s never just a clear-cut black and white.

As Wangui and Jones put it, “Any attempt to imagine safer cities must recognize and negotiate the full spectrum of actually existing mechanisms that people take up on a daily basis to feel protected.”

Gendered Security Discourse and Practices: Women, the Invisible Subject:

Women, always a continuous straight line of fighting and survival.

Wangui and Jones, in my opinion, really brought out the heavily gendered aspects of In(Security) and Mathare as their anchor offered them numerous everyday evidence of the ever-existing sidelining of women and to their ‘unseen’ daily contributions to communities, societies, nations and the world.

Women, Wangui and Jones staunchly argue, are just as paramount in the provision of security as men. To Wangui and Jones, Women are key protection actors adorned historically with the salient role of being protectors of kin and community; Women are orienting figures; Women are not passive victims; Women unseen yet paramount to security provision.

It is clear the article’s aim is to undermine and dismantle these simplistic binaries and dichotomies that blanket, invisibilise and undermine the everyday contributions of women, especially in urban spaces.

a. (Misleading) Dichotomies Used to Frame Women

You see what you want to see.

Feminist scholarship about African women is largely concentrated on a deep-seated issue, that until today we are still trying to curb, gender and domestic violence. However, within these debates and analyses Wangui and Jones argue that we are unable to move beyond the ‘Victim’ role of women. Whereby scholarship and non-governmental organizations literature prop African ‘slum’ women especially as either ‘peacemakers’ or ‘victims’. This further emphasizes the need to dismantle or dissolve these dichotomies and tropes used to frame women, especially African women, which close the door to seeing and knowing the actual every day of women, of the many different realities lived by different women and not the false realities generated from bias or short-sighted framing.

Because, at the end of the day, however false these realities may-be they affect us, woman or not, through the information we share with each other, the policies and laws we write and adopt.

On the constant ‘victim’ identification of women, as also outlined by Wangui and Jones, it is important to reiterate that women are not a homogenous group just like everything else is not always thinking and doing as one, just like life is not fully unified and duplicated. It fluctuates.

Women are and can be just as bad, mean or ‘evil’ as anyone else regardless of sex or gender, regardless of anything really. Motivations, priorities, vendettas, good will and all else does not hinge on sex or gender but, I believe, by the persons perceptions of life, their personalities, goals in life and how far they are willing to go for their realities or the realities that they want.

You see what you want to see.

b. Androcentrism of (In)Security

Security is soaked and strongly preoccupied with masculine force, debatable? Maybe not as much, but there is always room for some discussion: Men are often regarded as more visible and explicitly assertive when it comes to protection and physical intimidation.

A personal observation is in some Matatus (public transport in Kenya) mostly a male tout, conductor, is less likely to intimidate a fellow man than he is a woman; In a club or bar, men stick close to their female counterparts as a means to ward off other men. Possession and protection, I find, go really well together. Can we say security, a part of it, is possession?

Wangui and Jones highlight the vulnerability of single mothers in urban informal settlements like Mathare where the lack of a male presence increases their chances of being attacked and harassed – physically, sexually and with high levels of intimidation if they even think to seek redress. Their children suffering the same fate as them, as one respondent told Wangui and Jones that rape especially was towards children who were left home and vulnerable due to parents/guardians looking for work and sustenance.

Hence the only way she, a single mother, can ward off insecurity is if she had the strength to fight for herself and her kin or to move to another living area which may not be economically possible, while others have ancestral roots in Mathare. However, in the end, many would submit to the attacks and harassment for fear of their lives and that of their loved ones. In addition, lack of adequate living infrastructure creates conditions of risk for women, for instance, Mabati homes are easily accessed, damaged or pierced (police bullets/sharp objects).

Once again one can see how multiple factors are at play when it comes to (In)security and its ties to patriarchy; Women’s vulnerability always, naturally, at the forefront and always taken advantage of.

c. Unwillingness of state administration to act on behalf of women: Institutionalized Patriarchy

Another instance reported by Wangui and Jones is the approach of police and local administration to the insecurity facing women and children everyday especially in urban informal settlements.

Due to state negligence and exploitation of grey areas that are informal settlements in Nairobi like Mathare where sanitation facilities like toilets and washing areas are not immediately available to all and one has to go a certain distance to execute their hygiene needs posing significant risk of physical and sexual attacks to women and young girls and boys. As one respondent was told by police after her daughter was raped while going to the toilet early in the evening, “That is not the time to go to the toilet,”.

Our levels of concern for each other needs to be a national agenda, Vision 2030. Vision Now! It is not only about having better policing but also, more so, having humaneness and actionable empathy from each of us. We are all vulnerable to pain and loss at the end of the day. But our realities and priorities are different, self-focused.

There is a significant disinterest of local state administration and police (public security enforcement) when it comes to even just receiving cases of sexual violence. Furthermore, retribution in such cases is a double-edged sword in informal urban settlements like Mathare where reporting cases to the police can have serious consequences to the informant and their loved ones, be it from the perpetrators or the police themselves. Once again corruption unveils its ugly head.

d. Wonder Women of Mathare

Wangui and Jones’s study found multiple practices, most non-violent and non-physical, utilized daily by women in Mathare (Invisible interventions supported by visible strategies):

. Community Grapevine: Sharing any pertinent information whenever and wherever they met in the streets, hair salons, shops, church, chama gatherings, queuing for water etc.,

. Prearranged Community Meetings and Projects, (Barazas),

. Advocating to local state administration, organizations and businesses in the area to provide jobs to the youth,

. Early Observations and Interventions: Keeping a look out for at risk youth groups or individuals that may fall prey to criminal activity,

. Working with approachable police officers as their representative and intermediary when insecurity/criminal cases arise,

. Curbing Violent Redress: Mathare women would escort suspects to the police station to ensure they were not attacked and killed along the way usually by police,

. Emotive pleading of older women to curb violence in their communities

. Mob Justice (worst-case scenarios): Women have been reported to participate in public beatings and lynching of people involved in anti-community criminal behavior. A good example is Van Stapele 2015’s Bondeni women who pursued alleged criminals and macheted two of the criminals.

Understanding (In)security in Informal Settlements:

Informal Urban settlements the likes of Mathare mitigate on the daily major security challenges within complex realities, complex spaces: Lack of service provision (water, electricity & sanitation etc.), tenure contestations, unemployment, socio-economic rights, ethno-political fault-lines, patriarchy and generational ties.

a. The Greyness of Informal Urban Settlements; Taking Advantage of Informality

(In)Security in the broader structural dynamics, Urban Informal Settlements like Mathare are ripe with structural violence that is deep-seated and multilayered in deprivation and illegalities, the aforementioned grey spaces.

Grey because urban informal settlements are a cocktail of both insecurity and security (income generating activities like vigilante security groups). I would argue that there is a neutral group in-between neither secure or insecure, creating an even more difficult situation to untangle. But a situation, reality, that most definitely requires untangling. This greyness is a loophole where legally areas such as Mathare apparently fall outside the formal realm of law and planning. Again, we see what we want to see. Now imagine what happens to what we do not want to see?

Wangui and Jones argue that you will find high numbers of police postings in certain urban informal settlements due to: Level of informality in the area, earning potential (bribery) and red tapes/level of greyness. For instance, police/state services are easily used for personal gains be it vendettas with business rivals, unproblematic youth or individuals, or expanding business interests. This further catalyzes corruption upon policing and state services exuberating insecurity thwarting any efforts be it from men or women for a secure neighborhood.

Money, Power and In(Security)

With greyness well-positioned individuals and groups can flex and intimidate as they please, act and do as they please. As one respondent told Wangui and Jones:

“There are owners of the ghetto; you don’t want to mess with them. Even if we were born here, we are not owners; we are just stepping on their soil…; We are just small fish in the big pond,”

There is a very deadly and fierce competition for land and deep regulatory failures in areas like Mathare where land contestations are a frequent issue between those who ‘own’ andthose who just live on the land. I use ‘own’ here very loosely.

The political economy in urban informal settlements establishes the planning decisions for instance water connectivity, garbage disposal etc. Hence, land conflicts represent the most significant structural issue in such informal areas, bringing clarity to understanding the heavy uncertainties of life in Mathare and places alike.

Redevelopment Through Fire: Kenya’s Dragon Breathe

Fire, unpredictably hot and most of the time man-made, is a tool utilized for forceful evictions for higher profits in redevelopment or infrastructural projects in urban informal settlements like Mathare. The main actors in these evictions usually the government, land owners and/or external ‘other’ persons/groups.

But they own the land they have a right to do as they wish? Maybe, maybe not.

But is there a need for forceful, impromptu and sometimes...most times... burning evictions? Or is it just business nothing personal?

b.Community perceptions of safety: Security for You and Me

Wangui and Jones, I would say, expertly brought out multiple factors and scenarios of (In)Security in Mathare. Through their variable data collection methods, they were able to report a widespread local distrust of the police and the vigilante groups offering (In)security in the area. This explains the need for individuals, families and acquittances, especially women, to take up arms to providing security and tackling insecurity. Furthermore, they were able to identify:

Vulnerability of Informal Settlements:

. Social Problems

. Private Developers

. Arbitrary State Policy

. Oppressive policing of supposedly illegal environments: Unlawful infringements or evictions

Challenges To Security Provision:

. Fear: A strong deterrent in tackling abuses; Poverty and the internalization of inferiority and a sense of helplessness,

. Familial Bonds: Protecting criminal kin slowing down/inhibiting efforts for reform and curbing insecurity; With limited economic opportunities there are shifting meanings of what constitutes a crime (rationalizing a loved-one’s crime),

. Police and Power: Informalization (Neglect) of state service provision and unregulated urban informal settlements; Earnings (profits) available are monopolized by wealthy patrons not living in these urban informal settlements – ‘Control the service, Control the Law’; Land Grabbing and deadly forced evictions for redevelopment or higher profits (Living under constant threat of displacement); Tendency of money/power/networks to ‘bend’ decision-making/laws and influencing state authorities (well-placed individuals and group taking advantage of informality),

. Consequences of long-term exclusion from city services: Urban Informal Settlements like Mathare become grey areas for personalized interests to reign and the residents of such areas collateral damage to the dealings (unbound corruption); Lack of access to basic state services; extrajudicial killings by state officials; Rising of vigilante groups offering both protection and terror; Territorial Stigmatization

Factors Linked to Experiences of Insecurity in Informal Urban Settlements:

. Economic precarity: Unemployment

. Single Parenting

. Sex Work

. Fires

. Lack of Basic Infrastructure

. Sexual & Physical Violence; Rape, Child Abuse

. Deficit and/or Monetization of state services: protection, sanitation etc.

My Conclusion:

My take from Wangui and Jones is essentially the need to broaden the scope of understanding in discourse/scholarship/common sense when it comes to (In)Security, or any other ‘unmentioned’ areas: Who are (all) the actors, how does each contribute to (In)Security and how can we utilize/acknowledge the efforts and contributions by all actors in (In)Security.

In addition and more importantly, the need for saneness and pro-actionable empathy especially in state officials. The need for more principled individuals and groups aiming for the betterment of the community and the individuals within that community, including themselves. The recognition that money and status have and continues to have power over state services especially in grey areas that are urban informal settlements. Most of all, Women are visible and they protect themselves and others on a daily basis.

Methodology Used:

Wangui and Jones’s paper is based on several years of research in Mathare focusing on answering:

How do women live in a space that is often conjured as unlivable for them?

What practices do they engage in to ensure security?

What are some of the significant threats and challenges to ‘security’ in Mathare?

The study utilized mixed qualitative methods: Ethnography, Participant Observation, Interviews, 3 Focus Groups, ‘Go Alongs’, and a Self-made Quantitative Survey (400 respondents).

Link to the full paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327160489_Security_beyond_the_men_Women_and_their_everyday_security_provision_in_Mathare_Nairobi

https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/37858934

Reference:

Wangui, Kimari, and Peris Jones. 2018. “Security beyond the Men : Women and Their Everyday Security Apparatus in Mathare , Nairobi.” Urban Studies, 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018789059.

Possible Research Topics:

For those interested feel free to explore and remember to share with me on Boostlane:

a. Mob Justice Studies/Scholarship in Kenya: A Review

b. Policing In Kenya

c. Power in Informal Places: Taking Advantage of Informality

d. Territorial Stigmatization in Kenya; Media Coverage and Territorial Stigmatization in Kenya

e. Fire Evictions in Kenya; Fire and Informal Settlements in Kenya

f. Vigilante Groups in Kenya