What Next After #MeToo
Published in The Hindu
Sometimes to upend entrenched power structures, a revolution is required. Naming and shaming powerful men in the #metoo campaign is in many ways a revolutionary act. The truth about most was known, spoken in whispers, but not to their face. But now that omerta has been broken by some intrepid women and there's a palpable sense of power and possibility.
Revolutions are by definition anarchic. Cause they are aimed against those who make and enforce the rules. And thus so has been #metoo. Men are named, sometimes anonymously, and the naming itself requires action (namely, firing) to be taken against the men in question. There isn't really any room for discussion on context or degree of culpability. Some have raised questions about due process and the response has been, somewhat reasonably, that due process has failed. Stories of powerful men kissing and groping women far junior to them in age and power have come out. Reports of rape have come out. In the few instances, the woman has complained, perpetrators have not just gotten away but worse, complainants have been victimised. And it is true, arguing for due process when due process has failed feels a bit like batting for status quo. So let it be said, #metoo despite its limitations is unreservedly a good development.
However the question is what next? The #metoo movement is more than just outing powerful men, it's about shifting the balance of power between men and women, transferring the punitive aspects - shame, denied work opportunities - from the victim to the perpetrator. It is about ending impunity embedded in our social construct by shaping new social mores. This is and has to be a collective effort and it is important for the #metoo movement to have these discussions. There are two broad questions which require discussion. First, what should constitute sexual harassment. Second, when and how should the state and other institutional mechanisms come into play?
As personal accounts have tumbled out on social media, it has become obvious that the definition of "sexual harassment" is very fluid. In support, many have taken the line that sexual harassment is whatever makes the woman uncomfortable and it's for her to decide. This is a completely justifiable response when it comes to personal interactions, when the response is personal, by say ticking someone off. However when we bring collective pressure to bear against anyone for punitive effect, we have a responsibility to collectively define behaviour which will invite punitive action. Moreover, while public opinion has reduced culpability to a binary concept – it is important to define graduated norms of unacceptable behaviour, including associated levels of criminalisation and punitive consequences. Along with manner of establishing culpability, this is the sum and substance of due process.
There is no ambiguity that any form of coercion is wrong at all times and in all interactions and should engender exemplary punitive consequences. But what about social awkwardness? What about behavioral conflicts arising out of differential expectations in societies in transition? Staring, telling sexist jokes, crude propositioning can be as much about social awkwardness as abuse of power. It's not that these behaviours are not inappropriate or wrong but we should pause and think about the consequences of bringing in State or institutional power to penalise transitional behaviours in personal interactions.
India as a society is transitioning rapidly and people with widely different understanding of acceptable social mores coexist without having had time to acclimatize. In a study on sexual harassment by NSUI in Delhi University, we found that one in four girls reported sexual harassment but by far the largest incidence was behaviour like staring, crude comments etc. One conversation with two very articulate and urbane female students went quickly from young men staring and making women uncomfortable to an anti-reservation tirade for allowing university spaces to be allegedly overtaken by crude lower-caste rural men. As a society we can frame this situation as gender/caste/class antagonism or of managing inevitable conflicts in transitional societies. The institutional response in the former conception will be regulatory and punitive, the latter will be more about defining mores of acceptable behaviour and education.
There are legitimate concerns with bringing in State power to penalise transitional behaviors: first, the response is often too heavy-handed and second, it makes social reform and gender relations too antagonistic. Section 354 of the IPC defines sexual harassment as “physical contact and advances of unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures” but also “making sexually colored remarks”, the latter being punishable for up to one year of imprisonment. It is true that conviction rates under legal processes are extremely low but surely even conceptually, we don’t want to send people to jail for telling crude jokes (there is a separate clause for demanding sexual favors).
Institutionally too, it is important to expand the discourse to talk about the measures required to create more gender-neutral spaces while retaining room for graduated levels of punishment. Censure, delayed or reduced work opportunities, suspension and firing are all forms of regulating inappropriate behaviour and we should be wary of a reductive public discourse where the institutional response is a binary of firing/not firing with latter interpreted as sanction and/or encouragement.
Impunity exists in a social construct. Till now, due process did not work because the social context was skewed in favour of marauding men. However the long battle waged by generations of strong women before and the courage of many women today together is forcing the social context to change. It is important to use this moment to institutionalise and craft a new more effective due process. That should be #metoo’s lasting legacy.