Feminist and Radical Geographies - Assignment Example

Feminist and Radical Geographies Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Question 1: What is feminist geography all about? And what kind of geography do its proponents want to achieve? The discourse of feminist geography came to the limelight in the 1970s to explore the position of women in human and social geography. Johnson (1989) defines feminist geography as the recognition of common experience and resistance of women to men’s oppression in a bid to gain and control themselves. The concept of ‘feminist geography’ is pegged on a growing social thinking that gender relations and human society should be understood in perspectives of both men and women. Geography as an emerging social paradigm to raise the consciousness of women applied methodologies, models and criticism of women dominance in certain geographic and social spaces. Early development of feminist geography can be traced to Zelinksky (1973) who highlighted the relative status of women with Hayford (1974) and Burnett (1973) observing the presence of early writing in the Antipode. Subsequent writings exposed the continued isolation and exclusion of women with respect to home and worked spatial areas. This underpinned the perpetual discrimination of women in sex geography, study, and human geography. While unraveling discrimination and inequality within the geographical profession, McDowell (1986) observes that feminist geography in the 1980s took an academic perspective as scholars, questioned the oppression of women and gender inequality. Moreover, it was deemed necessary that emancipation of women and ‘unbalancing’ the power gradient would recognize the role of women in the infinite space and time. Women control of home space is unquestionable, but the concern of women geographers expanded the distinctive geographies of women to include control of space and the relative experiences of places and time. The 1990s witnessed a renewed criticism and concerns over women quest for equality at home, work and politics. Pratt (2000) represented the ‘feminist geographies of difference’ after drifting away from class systems and gender approach of previous feminist geographers. This was perceived as a gender contest between men and women, embrace of social and cultural theories as well as developing ‘feminist’ alliances regardless of race and class. Bondi (1993) asserts that politics of opposition were ripe to challenge the fraudulent claims by dominant groups that women were engaging in ‘identity politics’. The recognition of geographic position of feminism in space and time has been long overdue given its steady political and intellectual movement. Therefore, the geographical focus in the geography is women embody the spatial separation and constraints of distance that describe the gruesome effects of gender inequality. Gibson-Graham (1996) argues that inequalities in a capitalist economy, as theorized by Marx, were vague and confusing, hence the need to construct gendered differences with respect to race, class and place. Again, this distinction led to a new paradigm of sexual consciousness which involves the inclusion of terms such as bisexual, gay, straight added to the existing discussion of gender. Blunt and Wills (2000) note that institutions of geography are opposed to sexism that has permeated departments and disciplines and seek to produce knowledge in a more contextualized and embodied way. The works of Gibson-Graham (1996) and Blunt and Wills (2000) not only reiterate the departure of feminist geography but also inspires geographical interest in urbanization, politics, history, culture, society and economics. Bowlby, et al. (1989) claims that by evaluating geographical practice, a political practice will emancipate the ‘sexist, phallocentric and patriarchal’ order in society. Women have been undervalued and underrepresented in society hence receiving little attention in literary and academic discourse that is already dominated by men. Stoddart (1991) edged women out of history of geography by dismissing the writings of Victorian women travelers. Domosh (1991b) agrees that experiences and perspectives of women need to be explored through feminist approaches and not necessarily to be ‘tacked on heroes list’ alongside men. McEwan (1998) suggests an alternative tradition that positions women and their knowledge in historical junctures away from the traditional geographical boundaries. Critical feminist approaches may end up with trivial considerations if they pursue ‘geographical traveling’ as opposed to tackling pressing issues of imperialism and historical geography. For example, within geography, the geographical position of men, masculinity and role of women has always witnessed male dominance, harassment and patronization of women as alienation of women outside the frontiers of geography. Legitimate geographical knowledge is at risk when the discipline is dominated by men and interests that perceptually serve men. Rose (1993) decries that feminist work was at risk of marginalization and isolation of being incorporated into the mainstream academic discipline. In her critique of two recent books Livingstone (1992) and Urwin (1992), the author expresses discontent over ignorance on gender issues by the former and underrepresentation of feminism by the later. Similar arguments and feelings of ‘feminist geography’ underrepresentation have been widely protested. Mayer (1989) felt that invisibility and consensus were still bogging down the efforts of women representation in the textbooks of human geography. Cloke, Sandlers and Philo (1991) lament the limited attention given to feminist geography and exclusion of geographical debates in non-English written works. Arguments of feminism have huge influence on the human geography just as debates proposed by postmodernism, humanist and Marx thrive. Feminist theory and gender geography have been illustrated by Peet (1998) while writing the ‘Modern Geographical Thought’ and shown to have a connection to radical geography. Possibly, feminist arguments may have been ‘whirled around’ by the same people possessing both feminist and radical ideologies. Ultimately, contribution to a better and new society is discourses that bring out discrimination and isolation in mediation spaces as well as disengaging patriarchy and capitalism. Walby (1986) took a five-pronged approach to gender inequality by critiquing the patriarchal systems while Foord and Gregson (1986) expressed desire for human survival and social reproduction through interrelationships between nature and humans. Sexuality and space have been given broader coverage by Pratt (1992) who notes that knowledge is situated, power relations understanding through social theory and differences in groups to include sexual orientation, class, and race. Hubbard (2000) incorporated sexually, and sex into the geographical agenda and noted that human sexuality dynamics shape space and reflects its understanding, perception, and representation. Question 4: Who are the Radical geography and discuss to what extent they managed to impact the discipline of geography? Radical Geography is synonymous with the adoption of Marxist ideologies of late 1960s and early 1970s. Radical geographers are those who espoused these radical practices and ideas as manifested in the capitalistic perception of Marx. Walker (1989b) evaluated the contribution of American geography in a progressive social agenda and analytic framework but borrowed from the Marxist theory to discuss social processes and local labor markets. Peet and Thrift (1989) chose issues relating to ‘political economy’ as relevant in addressing the weakness of a capitalistic system. The radical geographers were worried about rising cases of poverty in affluent America, discrimination against African-Americans, neglect on environmental sustainability and cultural shift to ‘hippies’ (counter-culture). For example, radical geographers were seen as an intellectual movement from third world nations to engender social change and harbor politics of revolution. Harvey (1999) used a theoretical perspective of a world falling apart when the west was riddled with political disruptions and chaos evidenced by imperialist war in Vietnam, student movements in Europe and Latin America, repressions by the Soviet Union and the Gulf War. Horacio Capel (1981) identifies 1969 as a turning point for radical geographers in two ways. One, it witnessed a rise in the mass of manifestos and radical paper produced. Secondly, ‘Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography’ was conceived. This culminated in increased citizen and political movements. In the 1980s according to Peet and Thrift (1989), the works of Marx into a new wave of critique, witnessed restructuring and recession and increased consciousness among state socialist economies. This was also the beginning of a change in radical geography dispensed by ‘Young Turks’ and grew narrower and professional. Peet (1977) claims that earlier works of radical geographers were liberal and least went below the surface. Gray (1975) noted that the expressions of preferences and outcomes of choices informed increased people’s capacity to move and take advantage of the new opportunities in housing markets. This lauds the fact that people had more freedom to choose location and type of dwelling, accept residential patterns and study behavior of consumers. For example, since social problems manifested in space, people’s choice over living space becomes constrained by income and volatility of the housing markets. This observation was earlier captured by Pahl (1969) who mentioned two sets of constraints; social constraints and spatial constraints. Concerning spatial constraints, cost, time, and distance limited access to facilities and resources. On the other hand, social constraints restricted distribution of power in society through bureaucratic rules and procedures. Harvey (1975a) argues that control of social conditions was minimal through political mechanisms of control but finance capital evidenced by capitalistic production modes. Reproduction of class differences typifies the capital society that is profit seeking. Residential separation is one such culmination of capitalism and attempts to control space under a common denominator, income. Counter-revolutionary theory and ghetto formation as mentioned by Harvey (1972) was critiqued by Folke (1972) since the later represented social sciences and geography. The ruling classes have been taunted as decision makers of interests and values that the society must follow. However, Eliot Hurst (1980, 1985) suggest that radical change is possible through mass mobilization and least through geography given that geography endorses inconceivable revolutionary theories. Harvey (1972) had critiqued the scientific development model of Kuhn that it assumed the independence of science in enveloping material conditions and constraining society. The author believed that Marxist theory removed power from the capitalist hence unable to control the factors of production. Anderson (1973) and Eliot Hurst (1980) agreed that it was insufficient to embrace Marxism to bring irrelevance to geography, rather, spatial fetishism accords substantial and separate reality to the concept of space. Sheppard and Barnes (1990) when commenting on Marxism and regulation theory recognized Harvey’s (1982) ‘Limits to Capital’ through political-economic approach by way of structuralism. Structuralism had more influence from Anglophone perspective than Catalan theorists. Watts (1988) when commenting on the excerpts of Corbridge (1986) saw the need to pursue and uphold the rich and relevant geographical perspectives of Marx. Castree (1994) emphasizes the diversity in the writings of Marx and that structuralist impacts on geography were complex and beyond Marx. Moreover, structuralist ideas shaped the regulation theory that later became an important strand in the geography of 1990s. This is because structuralism was complex in developing the rules and dynamics of systems power and meaning. The concept of structuralism defines the use of speech, rules and conventions to investigate further studies on Marx and anthropological culture. Marx in structuralism had developed a dialectic trilogy of the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Castree (1996) addressed structuralism as dialectic processes that have temporal and spatial resolutions. To the author, structuralism can be interpreted in levels and between levels such as superstructure (level of appearance), infrastructure (level of the process) and deep structure (level of imperatives). Few geographers have investigated structuralism in detail, with only deep structure becoming their domain of analysis. Peck and Tickell (1995) suggest that structuralism weighed in on the formality of rules and regulations hence placing more power on habits, laws, social mores and the role of state firms. Social scientists and human geographers have made a great input in regulatory reconfigurations, geographical scales and systems of production. In addition, regulation theory provides a fruitful pathway to renew radical concerns in geography and return to relations and points of production such as changing the class relations geography and charting labor geographies. Massey (1984a) argues that understanding social and economic change is one way to determine local patterns of industries. These changes involve movement and shift to new places. Cooke (1989a) suggest that the concept of ‘locality’ brings about loss of sense of place and was reject by Giddens (1984) who asserted that ‘locale’ should embody a particular social meaning through spatial components. In conclusion, citizens have an obligation to communities and that rights and duties are constructed on space and identity. Humans are territorial, and structuring of society has implications for identities, obligations and rights. Read More