This article was downloaded by: [63.233.0.146]On: 10 August 2014, At: 08:05Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal ofFeminist GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgpc20

Which way to go? Women's walkingdecisions and Ultra-Orthodox enclavesin JerusalemRachel Singera & Rachel Bickelaa Department of Urban Design, Bezalel Academy of Art andDesign, Jerusalem, IsraelPublished online: 08 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Rachel Singer & Rachel Bickel (2014): Which way to go? Women's walkingdecisions and Ultra-Orthodox enclaves in Jerusalem, Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of FeministGeography, DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2014.939153

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2014.939153

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Which way to go? Women’s walking decisions and Ultra-Orthodoxenclaves in Jerusalem

Rachel Singer* and Rachel Bickel

Department of Urban Design, Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, Jerusalem, Israel

(Received 18 April 2013; accepted 8 March 2014)

This article explores howmaterial and ideological forms of social exclusion manifest atthe borders of Ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem and play out in thewalking patterns of surrounding (non-Ultra-Orthodox) populations. It is based on apilot study that uses a mixed methods design consisting of mental maps andquestionnaires to examine how (particularly female) residents living in close proximityto Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods perceive these spaces, experience themselves inrelation to the gender norms reproduced there and make wayfinding choicesaccordingly. This study builds on previous ones that have explored both the contestedterrain of Jerusalem’s city center and the dynamic relationship between the social andthe spatial to include a discussion of how religiosity and cultural politics expressthemselves in the commonplace, embodied act of the female pedestrian.

Keywords: gender; spatial behavior; walking; route choice; religious geographies;embodiment

Introduction

City life contains within it an inherent paradox of proximity and difference. Given the

significance it holds for such a wide range of different populations, Jerusalem provides an

extreme example of how urban centers can bring together conflicting worlds in ways that

are varied, unexpected and often fraught with contestations. These worlds parlay their

differences and struggles over space and significance (Massey, Allen, and Pile 1999).

While the constant interplay between the arrangement of spaces and the sociocultural

environments that characterize them (Hayden 1995) is what distinguishes the city and

gives it character, a closer look reveals that the everyday experience of it can be

complicated and constrained for certain segments of the population.

This article explores sites of cross-cultural contact, both imagined and real, where one

set of norms or values meets another and undergoes a process of negotiation. We focus our

attention primarily on the spatial constitution of Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods located in

central Jerusalem and the impact these neighborhoods have on mobility, particularly in

regards to female pedestrians who reside and identify outside of these communities. The

subject has gained significant attention following incidents concerning the imposition of

Ultra-Orthodox norms on non-Ultra-Orthodox women in Israeli public space (Blumenfield

2011; Buckland 2011; Kuruvilla 2013; Rosenberg 2011, 2012; Steinmetz-Silber 2013;

Times of Israel Staff 2012, 2013; Zarchin, Ettinger, and Levinson 2010). We draw on

gender theory and cultural geography to develop a spatial understanding of Otherness

insofar as it relates to the body and becomes manifest in the interreligious cultural politics

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: Rachel.Singer@post.bezalel.ac.il

Gender, Place and Culture, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2014.939153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

of central Jerusalem. Using these ideas as our point of departure, this pilot study was

developed in order to both explore how non-Ultra-Orthodox Jewish populations perceive

and experience Ultra-Orthodox geographies and identify which factors influence their

walking route decisions in and around them. The findings create a window into how

pedestrians ultimately navigate much more than distance while walking the streets of

Jerusalem. As such, we conclude by recommending an ‘applied’ approach to the findings

and suggesting that they be expanded to include a wider range of experiences, particularly

from within Ultra-Orthodox communities. We also believe our findings could contribute to

the recent analyses and policy debates happening both in and outside of the religious

communities (Bronner and Kershner 2012; Fraser 2013; Rotem 2011) concerning gender

segregation as a larger negotiation between the Lefebvrian concept of the individual’s

right to the city with a group’s right to difference (Fenster 2005b).

Women, place and space; situated bodies

Over the past decades, increasing attention has been paid to the study of gender and

geography after the publication of the landmark On Not Excluding Half of the Human in

Human Geography (Monk and Hanson 1982). As a result of this work and others like it,

sociocultural construction of gender and their expression in urban environments have

become increasingly significant areas of research (McDowell 1999). While interdisci-

plinary scholars have long been exploring the links between space and walking behavior,

women’s issues have still not received attention outside of an acknowledgement that

women generally have fewer areas available to them than men (Clifton and Livi 2005, 80).

This article explores how material and sociocultural forces situate the female body and

how these bodies act in response to the governing powers of a given place. These acts or

performances, in our case imagined walking decisions, help illuminate the ways in which

the female wayfinder must first internalize and then navigate a field of changing cultural

interpretations as she moves through the city.

In her book, The Global City and the Holy City (2004), Tovi Fenster writes that

‘women’s movements in space are very much controlled and restricted by cultural and

ethnic norms and values, which in turn symbolize spaces as “spaces of modesty and

immodesty” that sometimes become “forbidden” or “permitted” spaces for women in

specific cultural contexts’ (Fenster 1999, cited in Fenster 2004, 209). The constructions of

spaces that are or are not permitted, she continues, are usually the result of fear most often

experienced by women (Fenster 2004). This process of establishing appropriate usage of

space for female bodies can be seen in light of LeFebvre’s argument for the importance of

space in shaping social reproduction (Hayden 1995). The enforcement of boundaries on

streets or in territories that are defined by specific gender norms limit access to space and

therefore function to reproduce and maintain established identities.

So what happens when a female body moves from one public site of cultural

expectation to the next; or from a site that is associated with feelings of belonging, comfort

and ease to one that elicits fear and/or feelings of alienation and Otherness? What does she

intuit, and how does she respond to the varying messages that signal such a change in

norms and values? How does she negotiate the norms of one community when they come

into conflict with her own? These questions engage the pedestrian in the constant interplay

between the social and the spatial and inform her decisions around what is ‘indeed the

most intimate connection of the body to the environment’ (Madanipour 1996, cited in

Fenster 2004, 222).

2 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

In addition, this dialectical process of interpreting anew a set of cultural expectations is

what Simone de Beauvoir described with her notion of the body as ‘situation’, as an

occasion for the corporeal to reestablish meaning in different spaces. Thus the body is

‘a material reality which has already been located and defined within a social context’ and

also the nexus of choice and culture (Butler 1986, 45). Walking decisions are an

expression of this nexus, though not exclusively, meaning only that every choice a woman

makes regarding where and how to be in space is a product of this cultural negotiation.

Deciding how to get where she needs to be is not the only choice a pedestrian must

make in the process of wayfinding. She must also decide how to dress and situate her own

body in relation to a cultural landscape. Getting dressed ‘redefines the social body, and

hence is a discursive practice’ (Blumen 2007, 806). Undergoing this process according to

personal or communal values is not only the mode through which she identifies herself

generally but is particularly central to how she makes cross-cultural negotiations in the

public sphere. She is both the seer and the receiver of cultural information that allows her

to know where and how she is being seen. The visibility of the female body is unavoidable

and its representation by her appearance and clothing is one of the primary ways in which

people categorize others and interpret their surroundings (Blumen 2007). As we will see

later in the discussion on religious communities, the role of clothing and appearance is a

contested boundary marker between different group identities (Fenster 2004, 49) and also

functions as a mechanism for normalization and acceptance (Fenster 2007).

The self-awareness that one does not fit in with or reflect established cultural norms

often results in a sense of Otherness and even of spectacle. One can associate the

phenomenon of feeling out of place with what Fenster identifies as the emotional quality of

belonging (Fenster 2004). In the absence of this feeling, the pedestrian experiences a lack

of security, an element that previous studies have shown as playing a crucial role in

women’s decisions regarding their use of space and relations to their environments,

including their walking choices (Bianco and Lawson 1997; Clifton and Livi 2005;

Loukaitou-Sideris 2005). Beyond the boundaries of her local environment, judgments

about safety are made on the basis of preconceived images held about a place and its

occupants as well as on cues about social behavior from the actual physical surroundings

(Valentine 1989, 1990). From this, one can see how negotiating both familiar and

unfamiliar territories engages a wide range of emotional states that determine how the

pedestrian is likely to use a space. Alternatively, in cases where a space elicits fear or is the

site of a negative experience, the pedestrian will typically find ways to avoid it (Gardner

1995). We will continue to explore these patterns as they emerge in the walking decisions

and experiences of female pedestrians in Jerusalem’s city center.

The production of sacredness in public space

Thus far we have examined the relationship between the body and space, how it is situated

and how the pedestrian goes through a complex process of reinterpreting a new set of

cultural norms as she moves through spaces defined by difference. In order to continue the

discussion, we must first try to understand these spaces characterized by religious

particularism, how and why they function and by what means they reproduce themselves

over time. We will begin the discussion by looking at the production and reproduction of

religious geographies in general terms and then transition to a site-specific investigation of

how they manifest in Ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in the center of Jerusalem.

In their introduction to American Sacred Space, Chidester and Linenthal (1995)

introduce the concept of the sacred by offering two definitions from the study of religion,

Gender, Place and Culture 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

the substantial and the situational. The former elucidates the experiential quality of the

sacred, the essentialist ‘insider’s’ view, while the latter describes ‘an empty signifier’,

which as Claude Levi Strauss proposed is ‘a value of indeterminate signification, in itself

empty of meaning and therefore susceptible to the reception of any meaning

whatsoever’(Chidester and Linenthal 1995, 5). In this respect the situational sacred is

what we make of it, the result of cultural process of infusing some thing, person or space

with meaning. For the purposes of this article, however, we focus attention on the

divergence of and tension between these two perspectives as they manifest in space, the

substantial experience of those who identify with the sacred and the situational view,

which identifies sacred spaces with their contested political subtexts.

Building on the work of Gerardus Van der Leeuw (1986), Chidester and Linenthal

explore how the situational politics of position, property, exclusion and exile provide new

ways of understanding how ‘specific sites and environments, geographical relations and

symbolic orientations, can be produced and reproduced as sacred space’ (1995, 9). These

elements help us identify the ways in which these spaces function and why intentional

communities establish and ascribe meaning to them. Positioning takes into consideration

where these spaces are vis-a-vis their surroundings and the intentions behind why they

came to be located in a particular place. (A substantial view on positioning might invite the

possibility of divine agency or determination though we approach the question from the

situational assumption of a human agent.) The question of politics of property requires

sacred spaces to be examined not only in light of their meaning but the power relations

necessary to maintain and manage it (Kong 2001). Exclusivity, a question at the center of

our investigation of gender relations at the borders of Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods, is

central to determining who identifies with or is permitted access to the sacred space and

who does not. As Chidester and Linenthal argue, ‘sacred space is a means for grounding

classifications and orientations in reality, giving particular force to the meaningful focus

gained through these aspects of a worldview’ (1995, 12). Finally, Van der Leeuw argued

that sacred spaces must be positioned in the context of ‘human beings who find themselves

to be out of position, or experiencing loss of, alienation from and nostalgia for the sacred

in the modern world’ (Chidester and Linenthal 1995, 9). This concept of loss, or the threat

of loss, is one that appears most often in traditional societies that privilege historical

preservation and set themselves from the values of modern life. In his investigations of

Ultra-Orthodox life, Shilhav identifies these themes as being central to why their religious

territories function as a system of self-defense. They ‘halt the erosion toward modernism

and secularism and commemorate the communities that vanished by shaping an identical

lifestyle to be assiduously preserved’ (Friedman 1981, cited in Shilhav 1989).

The defining characteristics of a sacred space in many ways mirror those of any

community, religious or secular, that establishes autonomous territories with the intention

of pursuing collective political and moral goals or a common conception of ‘the good life’

(Kohn 2004). Berger (2011) brings an example of enclaves created by Western expatriates

working in lucrative industries in Saudi Arabia, who have effectively created an

environment within a guarded compound that reflects their cultural backgrounds and

Western values. In this case, as in the one we investigate regarding the Ultra-Orthodox in

Jerusalem, spatial seclusion allows these Western communities to live separate from the

dominant culture, which in their case is one informed by Sharia, i.e., the conservative

Muslim law, so that they might feel more ‘at home’. In another case concerning how the

constitution of ethnic enclaves functions within a wider, complicated cultural frame,

Uteng (2009) explores the constrained mobilities of non-Western immigrant women living

in Norway. These populations, predominately Pakistani Muslims, relocated to east Oslo,

4 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

an area that was historically settled to accommodate factory workers and low-income

families, with the intention of finding work. What she found was that these non-Western

immigrant communities, many of whom who had arrived to find themselves discriminated

against in the labor market, created clearly delineated wards in which they could live

freely according their gender norms, values systems, social networks and shared interests

(Uteng 2009). While Uteng (2009) suggests that these spaces arguably led to further

divisions within the dominant host culture, they also enabled immigrant populations to

experience feelings of belongingness, comfort and connection to home.

Both cases highlight the need for individuals and communities that position

themselves outside dominant frameworks (or are otherwise excluded by them) to create

comfort zones, spaces where they can live and act according to their own cultural norms

and values. We can identify parallels between these ethnic communities, which indeed

have their own religious practices, beliefs and rituals, to markedly religious ones like the

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish population in Jerusalem. However, what distinguishes the latter

from these other enclaves is the role the substantial sacred plays in creating meaning,

privatizing public space and distinguishing members from nonmembers. As we have seen,

the establishment of any space, let alone sacred space, is by its very nature an act of power

that can be located within a larger network of political, social, economic and symbolic

relations of power (Chidester and Linenthal 1995, 15).

The structure and characteristics of Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods in Jerusalem

Amongst the many transformations that Jerusalem has undergone in the past decades is

a shift in demographic composition. Whereas its neighborhoods were once ethnically

homogenous and characterized by spatial and socioeconomic polarization, the city is

now arranged according to shared lifestyle (Benvenisti 1996). Despite this shift toward

relatively ethnically diverse residential spaces, many interreligious tensions and strong

and sometimes severe cultural divides appear along the wide spectrum of religious

observance and beliefs (Hasson 2004). This spectrum of Jewish identity is

predominately defined according to categories such as Ultra-Orthodox, Modern

Orthodox, Traditional (Masorti) or Secular (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics 2010;

Katz, Levinson, and Levy 2002). Still, most academic literature on the subject (Fenster

2004, 2005a, 2005b; Hasson 2001; Rosen and Razin 2008) rely on secular/religious

binaries to describe Jerusalemites, with little mention how the Modern Orthodox or

Traditional groups complicate the discussion of Jewish identities in the city. This study

identifies a diverse and nuanced interreligious population while focusing particular

attention on the various ways in which they interact with Ultra-Orthodox territories and

the cultural politics these spaces create.

Much research has been done on the Ultra-Orthodox population and its defining

characteristics (Friedman 2002; Hasson 1996, 2001; Rosen and Razin 2008; Shilhav 1984,

1991). Ultra-Orthodox Jews are characterized by strict observance of religious practice,

segregated communities, and traditional dress. They have largely maintained the

appearance of ninteenth-century Jews who lived in Eastern and Central Europe, a practice

that both honors earlier generations and establishes themselves as more authentic in their

performance of Judaism (Blumen 2007). Men typically wear black hats and coats,

signifying shared history, while women, also in dark colors, are required to wear loose-

fitting long-sleeved blouses and skirts, signifying modesty. Ultra-Orthodox enclaves

represent a version of the shtetl1 lifestyle that was lost during the process of Emancipation

and later during the Holocaust (Shilhav 1991).

Gender, Place and Culture 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

The segregation of the Ultra-Orthodox has been a fixture of the Jerusalem landscape

since the city expanded beyond the Old City walls in the mid-ninteenth century

(Benvenisti 1996). Meah Shearim, a ninteenth-century northeastern neighborhood situated

on the border of the city center is considered the core of the Ultra-Orthodox area. It was

built according to a ‘courtyard neighborhood’ typology with defense as a primary planning

consideration (Merion 1999). Over the years, the Ultra-Orthodox community grew and

expanded to many northern neighborhoods that now form a contiguous unit from Meah

Shearim in the east to Har Nof in the west (Friedman 1991; Shilhav 1991). This allows

Jerusalem’s Ultra-Orthodox residents a measure of separation from other parts of society

and space to create territorial, religiously homogenous enclaves as mechanisms of self-

defense against the modern liberal values of secular society (Shilhav 1991). Historically

these territories also had a protective, empowering function as they afforded inhabitants

the opportunity to engage in religious life and study in the context of shelter from outside

hostility (Boyarin 1997; Cantor 1995, cited in Blumen 2007).

As noted in the previous section, a useful way to examine sacred spaces is to frame

them in terms of politics of position, property, exclusion and exile. Looking at Jerusalem’s

Ultra-Orthodox territories in these terms, one can see how position and property, along

with implied ownership, function as tangible expressions of power that can be exerted in

order to both protect and reproduce established social values and norms. One of the ways

power manifests in these neighborhoods is through methods of ‘eyes on the street’ (Grant

and Rosen 2007) and supervision by residents over the behaviors of both other inhabitants

and visitors or passersby who permeate these public, yet culturally privatized, spaces.

Another way that members of Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods exercise authority over their

territories is through signage (Figure 1) imploring female pedestrians to dress according to

the community’s standards of modesty. As a means of maintaining the sacredness of the

space and making clear the community’s disciplinary practices, these signs situate the

female body in social space and determine clear boundaries between the forbidden and

the permitted (Fenster 2007). In the absence of physical barriers, these signs also represent

the group’s ideological gatedness (Rosen and Razin 2008) and symbolize a ‘wall of

holiness’ that strengthens and defends the ‘sacred culture’ within (Shilhav 1989). As

Fenster (2011) notes, the boundaries of Ultra-Orthodox communities are marked in other

Figure 1. Gender exclusive modesty sign on Shivtei Yisrael St. Jerusalem, this sign is the standardsign that appears at the entrance to Ultra-Orthodox enclaves, such as Meah Shearim and Geula.

6 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

symbolic ways as well, either with political graffiti (created by both Ultra-Orthodox and

non-Ultra-Orthodox residents) or by sensory markers of both sight and sound.

Furthermore, the borders of religious geographies function as spaces of cross-cultural

contact as between religiously heterogeneous populations, where difference is made

visible and reproduced in relation to one another. Blumen demonstrates this as she

examines the performative landscape of going-to-work in the morning (2007, 2011).

It should be noted that the presence of the modesty signs serves as an example of the

power struggle between the Ultra-Orthodox communities and the local municipality over

cultural politics. They are not approved or licensed by the City Enforcement Department

and are therefore illegal. The municipality wishes to retain a status quo between the

different groups in the city as there are and have been many points of contention that

occasionally flare up and become violent (Associated Press 2012; Fenster 2005b; Times of

Israel 2013). It is an understood pragmatic policy of the municipality to overlook

infractions of such bylaws, as removing them would create political tension and have

negative consequences for the relations between religious and secular groups (Fenster

2005b). There has been a growing civic response by Jerusalem residents against Ultra-

Orthodox extremist trends, including street protests against gender segregation (Zarchin,

Ettinger, and Levinson 2010).

Enforcing gendered segregation and norms by way of signage and surveillance are not

exclusive examples of how Ultra-Orthodox communities perform their ideologies in

public space; they also enforce the closure of roads and business on the Sabbath. These

practices not only have a protective function as noted above but also tie in with Van der

Leeuw’s third category of exclusion. In this sense, boundaries that define the necessary

Other function to simultaneously reproduce the norms within. From this perspective, acts

of segregation and exclusion are survival strategies that the Ultra-Orthodox employ to

facilitate generational recitations and ensure preservation of cultural history (Blumen

2007). These cultural norms apply to all aspects of life, from education, dress, behavior to

marriage, employment and even movement or transportation. Gender segregation on

public transportation serving the Ultra-Orthodox community, also known as ‘mehadrin

lines’ (Rosen and Razin 2008), has recently garnered much attention and controversy after

a series of incidents gained widespread attention in both the local and international media

(Blumenfield 2011; Buckland 2011; Hasson 2010; Kuruvilla 2013; Rosenberg 2011, 2012;

Times of Israel Staff 2012, 2013).

Methodology

This pilot study utilized a mixed methods research design that included both qualitative

and quantitative tools. The research instrument is a questionnaire with a number of

components; including a mental map section and closed and open questions. The closed

questionnaire provided a measurable platform for quantitative analysis while the open

questions provided room for personal narrative and explanations. These methods together

provide a more comprehensive view into the process involved in wayfinding and route

choice.

Kevin Lynch (1960) develops the concept of mental maps in his book The Image of the

City; he describes the process of wayfinding and the mental image as a result of both

present stimuli and past experiences. The images are the product of a two-way process

between the individual and their environment; the individual chooses, arranges and gives

significance to surrounding environmental elements. A positive mental image provides its

holder with a sense of ‘emotional security’ (Lynch 1960, 4). Hayden (1995) explores the

Gender, Place and Culture 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

phenomenon of territories segregated according to parameters that include gender,

ethnicity and class. Noting that signage is a distinctive feature used to demarcate space in

‘overlapping territories’ (Hayden 1995, 23–24), she charts the development of mental

maps that originated with Lynch that were further expanded to understand the differences

in how space is perceived by different groups.

Respondents were asked to draw two hypothetical walking routes on a map of

Jerusalem marked with start and finish points in which the shortest, most direct routes

go through Ultra-Orthodox enclaves. One route goes from Givat Hatachmoshet

(Ammunition Hill) to Hadassah College on Haneviim St., with the shortest route

passing through Shmuel Hanavi and Meah Shearim. The second route goes from Even

Sapir St. (Nachlaot) to Ramban St. (Rechavia) with the shortest route passing through

Shaari Chesed. The latter was established as an Ultra-Orthodox neighborhood before

World War I and has maintained its Orthodox standards despite becoming gentrified

over the past 30 years (Gonen 2002). Respondents were asked to imagine a scenario

in which they would need to walk between the designated points, decide which route

that they would take and draw it on the map (Figure 2). It was assumed that the

respondents knew how to read street maps and that they were familiar with the

neighborhoods in question. Of the two options, there is an objectively shorter route

through the Ultra-Orthodox areas and a longer one that avoids Ultra-Orthodox area2

(Figure 3).

In order to clarify how respondents perceive walking routes available to them, a

questionnaire was developed to accompany the maps. The questionnaire section

comprised closed questions with additional space for narrative, thus allowing the

respondents to describe their walking practices and preferences as well as to clarify their

impressions of the physical attributes and social aspects of Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods.

Basic statistical calculations and cross-tabulations were used to understand the

relationship between the variables collected in the questionnaire. The respondents were

also provided with space to give a narrative of their personal accounts; these narratives

gave depth and provided additional insight to the quantitative results.

The sampling is a nonprobability method, one that is not representative of the

population; respondents were recruited using a snowball method. It is a convenience

sample (N ¼ 34) consisting primarily of women (n ¼ 25), and men (n ¼ 9) with the same

criteria. The inclusion of men in the sample serves a comparative purpose. In order to

examine a group that would walk most frequently through or near Ultra-Orthodox

enclaves, the respondents were required to live in the vicinity of the city center3 and could

not own a car. With the exception of this criterion, the sample population formed a

relatively heterogeneous group religiously, identifying themselves along a broad (Jewish)

spectrum, defined in relation to Jewish practice using the following categories: Modern

Orthodox, Traditional and Secular. Of the female respondents, 46% identified as Secular,

17% as Traditional and 37% as Modern Orthodox. Of the male respondents, 67%

identified as Secular and 33% identified as Modern Orthodox. The respondents were

between the ages of 20 and 30 years, with an average age of 26 years. The study was

distributed in person over a two-week period of time, after which a joint analysis was done

of both the questionnaire and mental maps sections. The initial analysis of the findings was

a comparative one between male and female respondents. This was followed by a more

nuanced analysis of (mixed gender) subgroups, which were identified with varying levels

of religious observance.

While the Modern Orthodox community observes Jewish law, many of their practices

relating to ritual life and the role of women are contested by the Ultra-Orthodox world, and

8 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Figure 2. Map of the Ultra-Orthodox residential neighborhoods of Jerusalem (maps given torespondents did not have the pale gray layer of the Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods).

Gender, Place and Culture 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Modern Orthodox women are often seen as not being ‘modest enough’ by the Ultra-

Orthodox- ultimately leading to tensions between the groups (Kershner 2011). Modern

Orthodox communities do not insist on spatial segregation and often live in mixed

communities and integrate modern culture into their lifestyle (Benvenisti 1996). There are

many contemporary issues regarding Halacha (Jewish Law) that both groups observe,

though interpret differently, with Ultra-Orthodox groups adopting additional stringencies.

There is also much division regarding the role of the State of Israel and participation in its

frameworks (Levy, Levinson, and Katz 2004).

Individuals who identify as Traditional observe traditions relating to Jewish life cycle

events, mark the Sabbath and festivals with ‘ceremonial observances’, and keep Jewish

ritual dietary restrictions to some degree (Levy, Levinson, and Katz 2004, 271). Within the

spectrum of Secular Jews some have an antireligious stance that completely disregards

Jewish religious practice, while others value aspects of Jewish tradition though they do not

keep to religious practice (Ezrachi 2004).

A methodological difficulty with asking people to draw such a route is that the term

‘walkable distance’ was not always clear to the respondents, as it is variant and

subjective (Leslie et al. 2007; Moudan et al. 2006). Furthermore, there is no way to note

a preference between main roads and smaller ones or topography. More precise tracking

technologies that utilize GPS and other systems are available (Shoval and Isaacson

2006). However, more important than the exact route and the distance covered is the

general perception of the area that suggests whether the respondent will walk through

it or not.

Figure 3. Example of differences in male and female mental maps: the map on the right belongs toM. 25, a secular resident of the city who chooses the most direct route; the map on the left belongs toF. 24, a Modern Orthodox resident of the city who chooses a longer route that avoids Ultra-Orthodoxneighborhoods.

10 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Gender differences in route choices through Ultra-Orthodox enclaves: analysis of

mental maps and questionnaires

As we will see in this section, the factors involved in wayfinding and route choice are

multilayered and often affected by specific spatiotemporal considerations. The methods

used in this pilot study provided a comprehensive view of this process and highlighted its

complexities. For instance, while both male and female respondents indicated that they

would pick a route in areas where residents had a different lifestyle than theirs, the findings

indicated that if this consideration came into conflict with other, competing needs for

safety or comfort, than they would act according to a hierarchy of needs. These findings

identify which needs took precedence for non-Ultra-Orthodox pedestrians in their routes

choices.

In the first part of the survey, the mental maps section, 36% of women choose to avoid

both Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods in making route choices. Some respondents, however,

were selective in choosing which to avoid and which to traverse. For instance, 24% of

women chose to avoid Meah Shearim and yet still imagined walking through Shaari

Chesed while 20% indicated that they would avoid Shaari Chesed and walk through Meah

Shearim. Twenty percent noted that they would walk through both neighborhoods. In the

second part of the study, the questionnaire section, when asked if there were

neighborhoods they would avoid entering, the vast majority of women (76%) answered

‘yes’ compared with substantially fewer men (33%)4. More than half of the women (60%)

said they would specifically avoid Meah Shearim and many of those (60%) stated other

Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods as well5. Several women indicated that their choice was

dependent on the way they were dressed and if it complied with the modesty standards of

the neighborhood. Alternately, no male respondents listed Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods

as places they would avoid. According to their mental maps, however, 55% of the men

walked through both neighborhoods and took the shortest route and 44% of men bypassed

Shaari Chesed and walked on Ussishkin St. Female pedestrians predominately noted that

a sense of safety and past experiences informed their decision-making while male

pedestrians privileged the shortest route followed by a consideration of past experiences.

The safety concerns associated with making walking decisions are corroborated by the

majority of female respondents (67%) who stated that they would choose an alternative

route to avoid spaces that have negative reputations, either due to their portrayal in the

media or otherwise. Even more women (84%) stated that they would change their routes

according to the hour of day/night compared to lower rates of men (44%). This finding in

particular highlights that time of day acts a significant route variable for both sexes and

ultimately that safety considerations are not exclusive to female pedestrians. This point

was highlighted again in the narrative comments section where the male respondents

explained that areas they would avoid out of perceived threat were Arab neighborhoods,

parks or deserted places. Female respondents’ emphasized that they would generally avoid

places that lacked illumination at night.

On the questionaire more men (44%) than women (28%) had actual walking routes

that went through an Ultra-Orthodox neighborhood. The most commonly mentioned route

went through Shaari Chesed on the way to Nachlaot or Rechavia; other routes mentioned

go through Geula, Meah Shearim and environs (Kikar HaShabbat) en-route from the City

Center to Mt. Scopus or the Old City. The Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods within Nachlaot

(Batei Broida and Knesset Yisrael), Strauss and Makor Baruch were also areas that were

noted as being frequently traversed. While these neighborhoods share many of the same

defining characteristics as those in Meah Shearim and Shaare Chesed, they are smaller and

Gender, Place and Culture 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

have less of a presence in the media, which have made them less intimidating in the minds

of non-Ultra-Orthodox respondents.

Nearly half (44%) of women stated that they had experienced a negative incident that

would cause them avoid a certain area compared with 33% of men6. Of the negative

incidents reported by women in the Ultra-Orthodox areas were staring (24%), critical

remarks regarding dress (16%), being spit at (12%) and being cursed at (8%)7. One male

respondent noted staring when walking with his girlfriend, but not alone. It is important to

note that women from across the religious spectrum, including those who identify as

ModernOrthodox,were subject to negative incidents, indicating that the binary of religious/

secular fails to capture the nuanced dynamic between the cultural values of the Ultra-

Orthodox and other segments of the Jerusalem’s Jewish population. That said, secular

women were the more likely to take note of the signs, as were secular men, suggesting that

they might have entered the neighborhoods with a heightened or predetermined sense that

they were bridging a wider cultural gap in coming into these spaces. One male respondent

summed up his attitude to the signs with the comment, ‘I’m not a woman, if I was I assume I

would pay much more attention (to the signs)’ (M. 25, Modern Orthodox).

Women reported a range of negative encounters in and around Ultra-Orthodox

enclaves though they responded to them in a variety of ways. The most common themes

that appeared in their experiences concerned safety and feelings of threat, time of day,

dress and conflicting notions around modesty, discomfort and heightened states of self-

consciousness.

The following narrative account illustrates a conflict between the respondent’s own

definitions of modest dress and those held by the Ultra-Orthodox. She experienced herself

as abiding by the standards of modesty, despite the fact that she was wearing pants rather

than a skirt, yet still felt herself Othered and unwelcome. These feelings were verified by

the self-awareness resulting in stares and the negative experience with a male member of

the community.

I was walking in an Ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in modest dress (though I was wearingpants) but it appeared to bother people, I felt that people were staring at me, the worst waswhen a man spit at me and muttered curses. (F. 25, Secular)

Two of the respondents specified that they were asked by women to dress modestly,

indicating that the gendered norms and modes of surveilance are assumed not only by men,

but by female residents as well:

Several Ultra Orthodox women came up to me and asked that I close my cardigan so mycleavage wouldn’t be visible. (F. 22, Secular)

Passing through Ultra Orthodox neighborhoods I am often criticized and bothered by remarks,sometimes by women who tell me that I am bothering the men. Even though I have gottenremarks and stares it doesn’t stop me from going through those areas (Meah Shearim andGeula) if I need to, though I’ll prefer to go a different route if I can. (F. 24, Modern Orthodox)

One respondent recalled an incident from 10 years prior, highlighting the ways in which

other segments of the religious population do not fit the modesty standards of Ultra-

Orthodox neighborhoods and as such are also subject to experiences that make them feel

unwelcome in these territories:

When I was about twelve I walked into an Ultra-Orthodox neighborhood wearing pants, anolder man spit at me and called me a bitch. (F. 22, Modern Orthodox)

A number of other issues such as the time of the day and perception of dress were

described as determining factors:

12 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

I was walking on a street and an Ultra-Orthodox man came up to me and told me that the way Iwas dressed (jeans and a sleeveless blouse) brings ‘the disease’. Since that incident andanother one I try to avoid walking in the Bar Ilan area at night. (F. 26, Secular)

Other respondents said that what they were wearing determined how they would walk,

indicating that the self-awareness that one does not fit in with the established code or

cultural situation will manifest in forms of spatial avoidance:

If I dont feel like I am wearing modest clothing I will change my route to bypass UltraOrthodox and Arab neighborhoods. (F. 28, Traditional)

Depends on what I’m wearing. (F. 30, Secular)

The narratives illustrate a spectrum of both perceived threats and actual personal accounts.

Most of the female respondents described the process of identifying safe spaces by

consciously or unconsciously avoiding ones with negative associations; it did not always

follow that a respondent would avoid an Ultra-Orthodox area even if an incident had

personally occurred to her (of the 20% of the respondents who indicated they would go

through Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods, 40% remarked that they had also experienced

negative incidents there). This might have been because she framed her experience as an

exception or the result of her own behavior. Meaning, if she traversed the spaces on

different terms (i.e., wearing different clothes), then she would avoid standing out or being

subject to surveillance. That said, women who were aware that negative incidents had

occurred to other female pedestrians in these neighborhoods were likely to avoid them as a

result. In another scenario they would take note of ‘modesty signs’ and would choose an

alternative route. Women were also more likely to notice the modesty signs at the entrance

to Ultra-Orthodox enclaves, with 68% of the women noting on the questionnaires that the

signs would cause them to choose an alternate route. Only 11% of men had the same

response.

The mental maps showed that a considerable number of women preferred to take

roundabout routes that avoided Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods (Figure 3). The results of

the mental maps and questionnaires were most strongly correlated in the case of the north

route going through Meah Shearim. The results relating to Shaari Chesed, however, did

not exhibit a strong correlation. In this latter case, 20% of women and 44% of men

bypassed the neighborhood whereas in the questionnaire these respondents did not

indicate that it was one that they would consciously avoid. As one respondent summed up

her walking experience though Shaari Chesed:

I walk through Shaari Chesed and aside from the knowledge (that it’s an Ultra-Orthodoxneighborhood) and I receive stares sometimes from the residents, the walk is pleasant and verydifferent from walking in Geula and Meah Shearim. (F. 25, Modern Orthodox)

Shaari Chesed is generally well kept, quaint and has undergone a process of gentrification,

making it an appealing option for pedestrians. Like other Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods,

this one exhibits ‘modesty signs’, closes its roads on Shabbat and has an unofficial

exclusive policy about who resides in the neighborhood. An example of this is the case of

an acquaintance, an active member of the Modern Orthodox community, who was renting

an apartment in the Shaari Chesed neighborhood. When it was time to renew the lease, the

landlord said that it was impossible because he had been receiving complaints by members

of the local Ultra-Orthodox community about the fact that she wore pants. As a result she

had no choice but to move.

Unlike many other neighborhoods, however, Shaari Chesed does not receive the

negative media coverage that Meah Shearim does. The latter was singled out by many of

Gender, Place and Culture 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

the respondents as it has a particularly extreme reputation regarding modesty issues and

incidents toward passersby who do not comply with internal codes. While Meah Shearim

was actively avoided by the female respondents on the mental maps and duly noted in the

questionnaires, the reasons for not taking the shortest route through Shaari Chesed were

not clear in the responses obtained though this study. This indicates that not all Ultra-

Figure 4. Extreme modesty poster in Meah Shearim blaming immodestly dressed women,especially more modern Ultra-Orthodox women, for catastrophes and terror (10.2.09).

14 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Orthodox neighborhoods are imagined to pose the same degree of threat to female

pedestrians; this could be clarified in future studies using in-depth interviews. In contrast,

there is no active avoidance by the male respondents, serving to highlight the drastic

differences in gender perceptions regarding comfort and belonging in sacralized public

spaces. As stated earlier, physical attributes and other variables are instrumental in

determining route choice. One explanation for the discrepancy may be a preference to

walk on wider, more central arteries, as can be found on the edges of Shaari Chesed, or

successful past experience with a ‘good-enough’ route. Meah Shearim was most likely to

be avoided, as the neighborhood features complete gender separation in the streets during

some holidays and virulent posters targeting women are occasionally exhibited in public

space. A sign documented in 2009 directed toward more liberal Ultra-Orthodox women

blames their immodesty for poverty, disease and terror attacks (Figure 4).

Places thatwere considered to be interesting or attractivewere significant deciding factors

for 20% of the respondents. As one respondent stated, ‘I pick routes that are pretty and

interesting; if the route traverses a historical or ancient neighborhood that’s evenbetter’ (F. 28,

Traditional). Pedestrians also make route choices that enable them to have markedly positive

experiences, not just ones that keep them from having negativity or unpleasant experiences.

As one respondent articulated in her desire to seek ‘interesting places that arouse curiosity’ (F.

24, Modern Orthodox). The topography of the landscape was also a minor consideration for

8%of the respondents, which suggests that factors relating to the physical landscape are taken

into consideration along with cultural ones. As one respondent noted, making topographic

decisions was dependent on whether she was walking alone (F. 27, Secular).

Conclusion

One of the most challenging philosophical and practical questions that multicultural cities

face today is how to measure and identify the acceptable limits of difference (Smith 2000).

The findings of this pilot study indicate that this question arises in regards to certain Ultra-

Orthodox neighborhoods in central Jerusalem though not all. The site-specificity of

avoidance reveals that the issue at hand is not whether these interreligious communities

can share urban space. In fact, it is clear that they manage to do so successfully in various

parts of the city. However, discussions and debates around the parameters of difference

become pressing when incidents like the ones illustrated in the narrative accounts happen

within the framework of conflicting cultural norms. Until recently the governing bodies in

Israel, ranging from the local municipal level to the central government, have been

hesitant to address issues relating to Ultra-Orthodox communities out of fear that it will

upset a fragile balance between a powerful religious minority and the State.

A number of policy recommendations to combat the incidents were discussed in an

interview conducted with Jerusalem city council member Rachel Azaria, a leading activist

against trends of extremism in the Ultra-Orthodox sector. Amongst the proposals was the

need to take down the modesty signs and increase law enforcement in areas prone to

‘modesty incidents’; perpetrators would be liable to face criminal charges (Personal

Interview, 7 March 2012). Broad legislation to address issues of gender segregation was

proposed by Israeli Justice Minister Tzippi Livni in the spring of 2013. This legislation

would force local authorities to remove signs in public spaces calling for the gender

segregation of sidewalks and modest dress as well as monitor bus companies to ensure that

female passengers are not told to move to the back of the bus (Reuters and Harkov 2013).

The proposed legislation is an important first step in terms of top-down action, though any

comprehensive solution to these issues will require a renegotiation of the complex

Gender, Place and Culture 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

relationship between power held by Ultra-Orthodox groups and the government vis-a-vis

public space.

Further studies should include a wider, more representative sample and continue to

develop methodologies that deepen understandings of urban spaces and their surrounding

social characteristics. These would take into account the experiences and attitudes of diverse

and dynamic populations tomore clearly identify the complex issues that cause pedestrians to

feel alienated, and reduced in their mobility. In regards to this study in particular, Ultra-

Orthodox populations should also be included to better understand their perspectives. In order

to make the center of Jerusalem a thriving and sustainable one for all of its residents, the

municipality must make it a priority to effectively respond to intolerance of all forms.

Furthermore, all communities and religious geographies that strive to operate autonomously

in the context of a larger dominant culture need to accept responsibility for creating a climate

which considers the Other andmakes space for their difference. A failure to address incidents

of cultural intolerance has negative implications for all residents of Jerusalem and ultimately

further limits the city’s ability to contain its heterogeneous populations.

Acknowledgements

We thank Prof Eran Feitelson for his guidance in developing the foundation of the paper andencouraging its publication, Prof Ilan Salomon for opening up the world of mental maps andproviding many thoughtful suggestions, Dr Gillad Rosen for his continued encouragement, adviceand wonderful optimism, Dr Reuven Singer for his endless patience, support and careful readingsand Daniel Viltsek for his tenderness, support and for always making space for the writing process tounfold. Many thanks to our excellent reviewers whose very thoughtful and detailed commentsgreatly contributed to the clarity and cohesiveness of the paper.

Notes

1. A small Jewish town or village in Eastern Europe.2. The maps given to respondents did not have the pale gray layer of the Ultra-Orthodox

neighborhoods.3. Respondents live in the City Center, Nachlaot, Machane Yehuda and Rechavia.4. The neighborhoods that the men avoided entering are neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, this

figure is relatively close to the amount of women (28%) who stated that they would avoid EastJerusalem neighborhoods.When asked what neighborhoods they would avoid walking in variousEast Jerusalem neighborhoods were given, including: Shuafat, Wadi Joz, A-Tur, most stated‘East Neighborhoods’. The reasons that these neighborhoods were avoided are related to theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict and are not expanded within the context of this article.

5. Other neighborhoods that women choose to avoid are: Geula, Sanhedria, Bucharim, Romema,Shmuel Hanavi, Mekor Baruch, Strauss, Bar Ilan at night, some stated ‘Ultra-OrthodoxNeighborhoods’. Note that Shaari Chesed was not directly mentioned.

6. The incidents reported by men occurred in East Jerusalem (an area that one respondent clearlystated that he would avoid at night), none of the male incidents were reported in Ultra-Orthodoxneighborhoods, while the incidents that females reported occurred in Ultra-Orthodoxneighborhoods.

7. More than one incident may have happened to the same respondent.

Notes on contributors

Rachel Singer is currently studying Urban Design (M.UrbsDes) at the Bezalel Academy of Art andDesign in Jerusalem. Research interests include differences in gender perceptions concerning the useof urban space; planning and politics in Jerusalem during the twentieth century; tourism and localcommunity participation in urban heritage sites.

Rachel Bickel is currently exploring how questions of citizenship, identity and belonging manifest inthe State of Israel/Palestine, particularly around the issue of conversion.

16 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

References

Associated Press. 2012. “Jerusalem’s Secular Minority Showing Life.” YNET, October 25. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4296785,00.html

Benvenisti, Meron. 1996. City of Stone: The Hidden History of Jerusalem. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Berger, Roni. 2011. “The Golden Cage: Western Women in the Compound in a Muslim Country.”Journal of International Women’s Studies 12: 38–54.

Bianco, Martha, and Catherine Lawson. 1997. “Trip Chaining, Childcare, and Personal Safety.”Women’s Travel Issues: Proceedings from the Second National Conference. Report FHWA-PL-97-024. U.S Department of Transportation.

Blumen, Orna. 2007. “The Performative Landscape of Going-to-Work: On the Edge of a JewishUltraorthodox Neighborhood.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25 (5):803–831.

Blumen, Orna. 2011. “Human-Being as ‘The Other’: Representational and Non-representational inthe Landscape Image.” In Patterns of Cultural Landscape, edited by Arnon Sofer, YaacovMaoz,and Ronit Cohen Seffer, 31–46. Haifa: Chaikin Cathedra for Geostrategy, University of Haifa.

Blumenfield, Revital. 2011. “Israeli Woman Refuses Ultra-Orthodox Dictate to Move to Back ofBus.” Israel News – Haaretz Israeli News Source, Dec 18. http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-woman-refuses-ultra-orthodox-dictate-to-move-to-back-of-bus-1.402021

Boyarin, Daniel. 1997. Unheroic Conduct: The Rise of Heterosexuality and the Invention of theJewish Man. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bronner, Ethan, and Isabel Kershner. 2012. “Israelis Facing a Seismic Rift over Role of Women.”The New York Times, January 15. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/world/middleeast/israel-faces-crisis-over-role-of-ultra-orthodox-in-society.html?pagewanted¼all

Buckland, Lucy. 2011. “Outrage over Israeli Women Still Being Segregated on Buses despitePractice Being Outlawed.” Daily Mail, December 20. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075985/Women-told-sit-buses-Israel-despite-practice-outlawed.html

Butler, Judith. 1986. “Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex.” Yale French Studies72: 35–49.

Cantor, Aviva. 1995. Jewish Women/Jewish Men: The Legacy of Patriarchy in Jewish Life. SanFrancisco: Harper.

Chidester, David, and Edward Tabor Linenthal. 1995. American Sacred Space. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Clifton, Kelly J., and Andrea D. Livi. 2005. “Gender Differences in Walking Behavior, Attitudesabout Walking, and Perceptions of the Environment in Three Maryland Communities.” InResearch on Women’s Issues in Transportation Technical Papers, 79–88. Detroit:Transportation Research Board.

Ezrachi, Elan. 2004. “The Quest for Spirituality among Secular Israelis.” In Jews in Israel:Contemporary Social and Cultural Patterns, edited by Uzi Rebhun and Chaim I. Waxman,315–328. Hanover: Brandeis University Press.

Fenster, Tovi. 1999. “Culture, Human Rights and Planning (as Control) for Minority Women inIsrael.” In Gender, Planning and Human Rights, edited by Tovi Fenster, 39–54. London:Routledge.

Fenster, Tovi. 2004. The Global City and the Holy City Narratives on Knowledge, Planning andDiversity. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Fenster, Tovi. 2005a. “Gender and the City: The Different Formations of Belonging.” In Companionto Feminist Geography, edited by Lise Nelson and Joni Seager, 242–256. Malden: Blackwell.

Fenster, Tovi. 2005b. “Identity Issues and Local Governance: Women’s Everyday Life in the City.”Social Identities 11: 23–39.

Fenster, Tovi. 2007. “Gender, Religion and Urban Management: Women’s Everyday Life in theCity.” InWomen, Religion, & Space: Global Perspectives on Gender and Faith, edited by KarenM. Morin and Jeanne Kay Guelke, 41–60. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

Fenster, Tovi. 2011. “Non-secular Cities? Visual and Sound Representations of the Religious-Secular Right to the City in Jerusalem.” In Postsecular Cities, edited by Justin Beaumont andC. Baker, 69–86. New York: Continuum.

Fraser, Giles. 2013. “Ultra-Orthodox Attitudes towards Gender Segregation Go to the Core of WhatIsrael Is All about.” The Guardian, October 4. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2013/oct/04/ultra-orthodox-gender-segregation-core-israel

Gender, Place and Culture 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Friedman, Menachem. 1981. “From the Trauma of Erosion to a Feeling of Security and Superiority[in Hebrew].” Migvan 63: 4–9.

Friedman, Menachem. 1991. The Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Society – Sources, Trends andProcesses. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.

Friedman, Menachem. 2002. “Haredi Violence in Contemporary Israeli Society.” In Jews andViolence: Images, Ideologies, Realities, edited by Peter Medding, 186–198. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Gardner, C. 1995. Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment. Berkley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Gonen, Amiram. 2002. “Widespread and Diverse Neighborhood Gentrification in Jerusalem.”Political Geography 21: 727–737.

Grant, Jill, and Gillad Rosen. 2007. “From Armed Compound to Broken Arm: the Meaning of Gatesin Israel and Canada.” 4th International Conference of the Research Network; Private UrbanGovernance & Gated Communities, Universite Paris Pantheon-Sorbonne, Paris.

Hasson, Nir. 2010. “Hundreds Cry ‘Jerusalem Is Not Tehran’ in Protest over Gender Segregation onBuses in Haredi Areas.” Haaretz, March 14. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hundreds-cry-jerusalem-is-not-tehran-in-protest-over-gender-segregation-on-buses-in-haredi-areas-1.266484

Hasson, Shlomo. 1996. The Cultural Struggle over Jerusalem. Jerusalem: The Floersheimer Institutefor Policy Studies.

Hasson, Shlomo. 2001. “Territories and Identities in Jerusalem.” GeoJournal 53: 311–322.Hasson, Shlomo. 2004. “When Two Rights Collide: Some Lessons From Jerusalem.” In

Geographies and Moralities: International Perspectives on Development, Justice and Place,edited by Roger Lee, and David Marshall Smith, 149–180. Grand Rapids: Blackwell.

Hayden, Dolores. 1995. The Power of Place: Urban Landscapes as Public History. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. 2010. “Social Survey 2009–2010.” [in Hebrew]. http://www.cbs.gov.il/statistical/seker-chevrati-h123.pdf

Katz, E., H. Levinson, and S. Levy. 2002. Israeli Jews: A Portrait. Jerusalem: Gutman Center, IsraelInstitute for Democracy, AviChai Foundation.

Kershner, Isabel. 2011. “Israeli Girl, 8, at Center of Tension over Religious Extremism.” The NewYork Times, December 27. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/middleeast/israeli-girl-at-center-of-tension-over-religious-extremism.html?pagewanted¼all

Kohn, Margaret. 2004. Brave New Neighborhoods. New York: Routledge.Kong, L. 2001. “Mapping ‘new’ Geographies of Religion: Politics and Poetics in Modernity.”

Progress in Human Geography 25 (2): 211–233.Kuruvilla, Carol. 2013. “Ultra-Orthodox Israeli Couple Sparks Riot after Telling Woman to Move to

the Back of a Public Bus: Report.” NY Daily News, July 31. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/israeli-couple-sparks-riot-telling-woman-move-back-bus-report-article-1.1414253

Leslie, E., N. Coffee, L. Frank, N. Owen, and G. Hugo. 2007. “Walkability of Local Communities:Using Geographic Information Systems to Objectively Assess Relevant EnvironmentalAttributes.” Health & Place 13: 111–112.

Levy, Shlomit, Hanna Levinson, and Elihu Katz. 2004. “The Many Faces of Jewishness in Israel.”In Jews in Israel: Contemporary Social and Cultural Patterns, edited by Uzi Rebhun andChaim I. Waxman, 265–284. Hanover: Brandeis University Press.

Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia. 2005. “Is It Safe to Walk Here? Design and Policy Response toWomen’s Fear of Victimization in Public Places.” In Research on Women’s Issues inTransportation Technical Papers, 102–112. Detroit: Transportation Research Board.

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press.Madanipour, Ali. 1996.Design of Urban Space: An Inquiry into a Socio-spatial Process. Chichester:

Wiley.Massey, Doreen, John Allen, and Steve Pile. 1999. City Worlds. London: Routledge (in association

with the Open University).McDowell, Linda. 1999. Gender Identity and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Merion, Eyal, ed. 1999. Jerusalem a Walk through Time: Yad Ben-Zvi’s Walking-Tour Guide.

Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press.

18 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

Monk, Janice, and Susan Hanson. 1982. “On Not Excluding Half of the Human in HumanGeography.” The Professional Geographer 34: 11–23.

Moudan, A., C. Lee, A. D. Cheadle, C. Garvin, D. Johnson, T. Schmid, R. D. Weathers, and L. Lin.2006. “Operational Definitions of Walkable Neighborhood: Theoretical and Empirical Insights.”Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3: 99–117.

Reuters, and Lahav Harkov. 2013. “Livni to End Back-of-the-Bus Gender Segregation.” TheJerusalem Post, May 9. http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Livni-vows-to-end-back-of-the-bus-gender-segregation-312614

Rosen, Gillad, and Eran Razin. 2008. “Enclosed Residential Neighborhoods in Israel: FromLandscapes of Heritage and Frontier Enclaves to New Gated Communities.” Environment andPlanning A 40: 2895–2913.

Rosenberg, Oz. 2011. “Israel High Court Upholds Ban on Sukkot Gender Segregation in Jerusalem.”Haaretz, October 16. http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-high-court-upholds-ban-on-sukkot-gender-segregation-in-jerusalem-1.390265

Rosenberg, Oz. 2012. “Woman in Beit Shemesh Attacked by Ultra-Orthodox Extremists.” Haaretz,January 24. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/woman-in-beit-shemesh-attacked-by-ultra-orthodox-extremists-1.409065

Rotem, Tamar. 2011. “Where Have All the Women Gone in Jerusalem?” Haaretz, November 14.http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/where-have-all-the-women-gone-in-jerusalem-1.395436

Shilhav, Yosseph. 1984. “Spatial Strategies of the ‘Haredi’ Population in Jerusalem.” Socio-Economic Planning 18: 411–418.

Shilhav, Yosseph. 1989. “The Haredi Ghetto: The Theology Behind the Geography.” ContemporaryJewry 10: 51–63.

Shilhav, Yosseph. 1991. A Shtetl (Small Town) within a Modern City–A Geography of Segregationand Acceptance. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.

Shoval, Noam, and Michal Isaacson. 2006. “Application of Tracking Technologies to the Study ofPedestrian Spatial Behavior.” The Professional Geographer 58: 172–183.

Smith, David Marshall. 2000. Moral Geographies: Ethics in a World of Difference. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.

Steinmetz-Silber, Shifra. 2013. “My Legs.” The Times of Israel, April 21. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/my-legs/

Times of Israel Staff. 2012. “Four Arrested for Segregating Jerusalem Buses.” The Times of Israel,April 9. http://www.timesofisrael.com/teens-arrested-for-segregating-jerusalem-buses/

Times of Israel Staff. 2013. “Ultra-Orthodox ‘Modesty Patrol’ Clashes with Police.” The Times ofIsrael, June 6. http://www.timesofisrael.com/ultra-orthodox-modesty-patrol-clash-with-police/

Uteng, Tanu Priya. 2009. “Gender, Ethnicity, and Constrained Mobility: Insights into the ResultantSocial Exclusion.” Environment and Planning A 41: 1055–1071.

Valentine, Gill. 1989. “The Geography of Women’s Fear.” Area 21: 385–390.Valentine, Gill. 1990. “Women’s Fear and the Design of Public Space.” Built Environment 16:

288–303.Van der Leeuw, Gerardus. 1986. Religion in Essence and Manifestation. Translated by J. E. Turner.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.Zarchin, Tomer, Yair Ettinger, and Chaim Levinson. 2010. “Dozens March against Gender

Segregation in Jerusalem.” Haaretz, September 29. http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/dozens-march-against-gender-segregation-in-jerusalem-1.316330

ABSTRACT TRANSLATIONS

¿Por donde ir? Las decisiones de recorrido de las mujeres y los enclaves

ultraortodoxos en Jerusalen

Este artıculo analiza como las formas materiales e ideologicas de exclusion social se

manifiestan en las fronteras de los barrios judıos ultraortodoxos en Jerusalen y afectan a los

patrones de recorridos en las poblaciones de los alrededores (no ultraortodoxas). Se basa

en un estudio piloto que utiliza metodos de diseno mixtos que consisten en mapas mentales

y cuestionarios para examinar como residentes (particularmente mujeres) que viven en

Gender, Place and Culture 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4

muy proximos a los barrios ultraortodoxos perciben estos espacios, experimentan las

normas de genero reproducidas allı y toman decisiones en de recorridos de acuerdo a ellas.

Este estudio se basa en otros estudios previos que han analizado tanto el terreno disputado

del centro de la ciudad de Jerusalen como la relacion dinamica entre lo social y lo espacial

para incluir una discusion sobre como la religiosidad y la polıtica cultural se expresan en el

lugar comun, el acto corporizado de la mujer peaton.

Palabras claves: genero; comportamiento espacial; caminar; eleccion de recorridos;

geografıas religiosas; encarnacion

往哪儿走？耶路撒冷中的步行决定和极端正统派的族裔飞地

本文探讨社会排除的物质及意识形态形式，如何展现在耶路撒冷的极端正统派犹

太社区的边界，并展现于周遭（非超正统派）人们的步行形式。本文运用包含心

灵地图以及问卷的混合方法设计之前导研究，据此检视住在极端正统派邻里附近

的居民，如何感知这些空间、根据其中再生产的性别常规来经验自身，并以此决

定路径的选择。本研究建立在探讨耶路撒冷市中心的竞逐地域和社会与空间之间

的动态关係之过往研究，以此纳入笃信宗教和文化政治如何展现于平凡事物、意

即女性行人所体现的行动之讨论。

关键词：性别; 空间行为; 步行; 路径选择; 信仰地理; 体现

20 R. Singer and R. Bickel

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

63.2

33.0

.146

] at

08:

05 1

0 A

ugus

t 201

4