Feminist Criticism of Geographical Science - Article Example

Feminist Geography s Geography Department Introduction It is quite obvious that the essence of feminism as of a phenomenonand approach lies in critical reconsideration of numerous spheres of society’s life including philosophical, scientific, cultural, political, economic and social aspects. Since the intense upheaval of antisexist movement (often based on socialistic view) and popularization of feminism in scientific environment, female scholars started constructing their own knowledge. Feminist theorists have been seeking to reform traditional approaches in various disciplines analyzing them from the perspective of gender relations and – most important and widely discussed – inequality of men and women in the context of those disciplines’ frameworks. Feminist theories consider the crucial socioeconomic dilemmas such as “women and society”, “women and freedom”, “women and production” etc. paralleled to researches in social relations determined by gender. In the field of human geography, a discipline studying the world viewed through the prism of human relations and activities across places and space, feminism manifests itself in a self-contained approach applying feminist methods and theories to studies of geographical space, environment, development and society (Rose, 1993, p.4). As human geography embraces a wide range of fields observing and researching virtually all sides of life on our planet apart from physical geography (culture, population, urban development, demographics, historical and economic geography and so on), feminist geography as a part of its seeks to attribute peculiarities of the world’s condition and development to relations of males and females and thus create a peculiar method of geographical research based on these relations through time and space. Therefore, according to the definition offered by Ellen Hansen (2012, p.i), “Feminist geography is a sub-field within human geography that relies on gender and place-based analyses to more fully understand the interface between human and natural environments”. History Many feminist geographers including Gillian Rose (1993) and Susan Hanson (1984) agree upon the fact that their approach originated from the general practice of male domination in geography. As the wave of liberation movement sparked among the women of the Western civilization in the 1960’s, ground concepts of sexuality, equality, payment for work and femininity were challenged by female members of the society (Johnson, 2012, p.345). For ages, men were had been leading constructors of geographical knowledge and data presented to public, while women were pushed out from this sphere or marginalized. It was clear that the image of the world and knowledge about geographical processes taking place in the society provided by scholars were inadequate from gender standpoint as they were biased by patriarchal ideas. As far as spatial sciences used to be considered the matter unavailable for women’s research, male geographers didn’t accept feminist-based approach, for feminist perspectives were criticized as irrelevant. “Some held the opinion that gender issues might be relevant for the social and political sciences but not for geography as a spatial science” (Fortuijn, 2011, p.175). However, female theorists saw the necessity to develop their own approach and methodology of geographical research, which would be sufficient for satisfying needs of women equally to that of men. The first considerable upsurge of feminist geography in the Western world began in the 1970’s as female scholars sought to expand their opportunities in the discipline that – according to Gillian Rose (1993, p.2) and other feminists – was dominated by men and thus focused on landscapes, places and spaces that were viewed as belonging to men. For instance, in Australia feminist scholars started revising the existing system of geographical research in 1980’s, inspired by the liberation movement and influences coming from the U.S., Canada and Britain. Aims of the approach Initially, feminist criticism of geographical science spread on the area of academic environment, for men were the dominating gender in terms of higher degree studies, publishing and academic positions they occupied. In other words, there was a need in reformation of demographics in the discipline, as women could make up only 10 per cent of academic staff in universities and generally rarely appeared in academic books and journals. At the same time, those women who were already involved in academic activity were often overseen in publishing and deprived of attention in their achievements. Therefore, early feminist geographers had a twofold principal objective: they sought to lend support to women that “were already in the academy” (Johnson, 2012, p.346) and involve more talented female researchers and theorists in the higher levels of the academic hierarchy – more lecturers, senior academicians, PhD graduates and editors of scholarly journals. Further aims of feminist geography, naturally, shifted from gaining more significant place in the academic environment to critical evaluation, revision and reformation of geography journals, curriculum and geography departments. However, later feminist tasks spread to alteration of the inner aspect of human geography – theoretical framework, content of the research – and subsequent reformation of the geographical enquiry process including methods, subjects and politics of research. Naturally, such goals were set in connection to realization of women’s place in the society and the necessity to overcome male dominance in terms of geographical knowledge acquisition: as far as geography is a discipline focused on gaining knowledge about the world (Hall, 2002, p.23) and women are an inseparable part of this world (not less important than men), geographical enquiry needs to consider women’s experience in order to make the acquired knowledge less biased and more comprehensive. According to Susan Hanson (1984) the key goal of feminist geography lies in reformation of gender relations, and it can only be attained through radical changes in the existing scientific approach to geography – both theoretically and empirically. Core ideas The essence of feminist geographies can be found in a definition of Jennifer Hall: “Feminist geography comes from an interest in the spatiality of women’s lives” (Hall, 2002, p.21). According to feminist scholars, oppression of women developed in patriarchal capitalistic society and comes from the mixture of gender inequality and spatial constraints through which the former can manifest itself. Particularly, McDowell & Massey (1984) consider the role of women in human geography in relation to places they live in. The article implies that the area women live in determines their experiences of gender relations and life in general. The authors provide numerous examples of areas with various types of labour organization and thus different types of women’s experiences. Feminist geographers may embrace one of the four key theoretical alternatives explaining origins of gender inequality from the perspective of different types of power relations: liberal feminism, radical feminism, Marxism and socialistic feminism. Based on these alternatives, three main strands of feminist geographies are formed: geography of women, socialistic geography and geography of difference. Based on liberal feminism, geography of women considers exact ways, in which women are discriminated through their social roles and spatial structures they exist in (Johnston, 2000, p.260). However, this is a descriptive branch of feminist geography, which seeks to explain how women are distanced from, for example, well-paid employment by their housekeeping duties or spatial separation of childcare facilities. The aspect of women’s discrimination implied in the spatial structure of cities and spatial separation between the workplace and home caused by industrialization are considered in Susan Hansen’s (1984) work. The highlight of the argument is that this division is historically preconditioned by differentiation of labor by gender, whereby women’s occupation revolved around household and men’s – breadwinners’ – in hired labour. The alternative chosen by many feminist scholars including Susan Hansen and Gillian Rose is socialist feminist geography, relying on reworked ideas of Marxism. The approach implies the idea that men exploit women’s unpaid labor at home and it is the state that is responsible for changing women’s position within the society. Therefore, the state should insure equal conditions for both genders and equal accessibility of key structures in the area in order to make it possible for both men and women to combine household duties and job. Methods Cultivating their ideas of gender inequality and biased nature of the existing knowledge in human geography, feminist geographers sought to establish their methods and practices of research. However, according to Kim England (2006, p.287), their contributions are more about epistemology, politics and methodology rather than about innovations in methods of scientific enquiry. First of all, positivism in research is questioned and criticized: the research cannot be value-free and is conducted in the world interpreted by people who live in it. Feminists assert that geographical research and data considered reliable “facts” should be paralleled to values, politics and power factors framing it. In terms of empirical researches, feminists offer abandoning the scheme of relations between the researcher and the researched, where the latter is completely passive, as interaction with the object during the fieldwork will minimize bias of the information. Moreover, flexibility in interviewing and readiness to shift to the aspect preferred by the object are stated to shape women’s everyday experience better (England, 2006, p.288). Furthermore, such concept as reflexivity is considered by feminist researchers in the meaning of self-conscious observation of oneself as a researcher (England, 2006, p.289) and realization of one’s power implied in this role. Also, feminist geographers deploy a range of qualitative and quantitative methods of data processing in order to identify and measure some general patterns in representative samples of population (statistical techniques, structured questionnaires, qualitative research involving observation, oral methods, focus groups interviews etc.). At the same time, feminist geographers are prone to deploy mixed methods of research involving mixture of both qualitative and quantitative methods complementing each other. For instance, the study of space and work conducted by Hanson & Pratt in 1995 and involving the extensive population sample involved statistical analysis, mapping of data, qualitative analysis of questionnaires collected during interviews. This set of research instruments was used to clarify connections between choice of residence, job search, gender segregation in occupation and domestic duties of women. The advantage of mixed methods lies in the possibility to unfold and explore the nature of a phenomenon more explicitly, as it enables involvement of several epistemological positions and geographical fields. References ENGLAND, K. (2006) ‘Producing Feminist Geographies: Theory, Methodologies and Research Strategies’. In AITKIN, S. & VALENTINE, G. (2006) Approaches to Human Geography. Sage: London and Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.286-297. FORTUIJN, J. D. (2011) Teaching gender and geography: the case of the Netherlands. International Research In Geographical & Environmental Education, 20, 3, pp. 175-178. HALL, J. (2002) ‘The Next Generation: Can There Be a Feminist Geography without Gender?’ The Great Lakes Geographer, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.19-27. HANSEN, E. (2012) ‘Feminist Geography: A Brief Introduction’. Dialogue and Universalism Volume 3, Number 1, pp.i-iii. HANSON, S. (2008) ‘Geography and gender (1984): Women and geography study group’. In HUBBARD, P., KITCHIN, R. & VALENTINE. G. (Eds), Key texts in human geography, SAGE Publications Ltd, London, pp. 91-99. HANSON, S. & PRATT, G. (1995) Gender, Work and Space. London: Routledge. JOHNSON, L. C. (2012) Feminist Geography 30 Years on - They Came, They Saw But Did They Conquer? Geographical Research, 50, 4, pp. 345-355. JOHNSTON, R.J., GREGORY, D., PRATT, G. & WATTS, M. (Eds.) (2000) The Dictionary of Human Geography 4th edition. Oxford: Blackwell. McDOWELL, L. & MASSEY, D. (1984) ‘A Woman’s Place?’ In MASSEY, D. & ALLEN, J. (Eds.) Geography Matters! A Reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.127-147. ROSE, G. (1993) Feminism & Geography: The Limits of Geographical Knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.  Read More