Area (1 998) 30.3, 195-1 96

Women, gender, feminisms: visiting physical geography

Anna Bee, Clare Madge and Jane Wellens Department of Geography, University of teicester, Leicester LE1 7RH. Email: aebl2@le.ac.uk

There is a significant literature on the position of women in geography (McDowell 1979; McDowell and Peake 1990; Monk 1996; Zelinsky et a/ 1982). The majority of this work has been carried out by human geographers, who have addressed the inher- ent masculinism of academic geography and the ’invisibility’ of women in human geography research and praxis. Confronting this ‘invisibility’ has lead to a profound critique of the geographical discipline and the scientific method by feminist geographers (McDowell 1992; 1997; Rose 1993; Women and Geography Study Group 1997). One aspect of this masculinism that has received relatively little atten- tion is the area of women and physical geography. There are, however, signs that this is slowly begin- ning to change. Recent professional geographical meetings have sought to raise awareness of the issues surrounding women and physical geography, and feminism and scientific knowledge (eg Luzzadder-Beach and MacFarlane 1996; a Women and Geography Study Group reading weekend in 1996; and a session at the RGS-IBG Annual Conference 1997).

In parallel, there has also been a move within the natural and physical sciences to develop a feminist approach to science (Harding 1991; Schiebinger 1993; Shepherd 1993). The debate has largely focused on the natural sciences (Kirkup and Smith Keller 1992); for example, critiques of biology and its theories about women (Bleier 1984; Birke 1986). An enduring concern has been the way in which the women’s movement might contribute to the growth of knowledge in the natural sciences and to improving the practice of science. No single route or method has emerged as dominant, but Harding (1992, 57) suggests that there are three resources that make unique contributions to the growth of knowledge in the natural sciences: women scientists, feminist politics and feminist theories about science.

These issues were discussed with reference to physical geography at a reading weekend organized by the Women and Geography Study Group in 1996. One outcome of this meeting was the desire to bring human and physical geographers together to explore the issue of gender and physical geography. Consequently, a session was convened at the RGS- IBG Annual Conference (1 997) entitled ’Gender and Natural Resources’. The session aimed to discuss women and physical geography, gender and bioge- ography and feminism and science. Four of the papers published in this issue of Area arose from that session. They review the status of female physical geographers in British academia and move on to present an argument for a profound critique of the masculinism inherent in the scientific tradition on which physical geography i s based. The aim of this set of papers is to expand upon the work on women and physical geography and to raise the possibility of the creation of a specifically feminist physical geography.

The introductory paper by Lisa Dumayne-Peaty and Jane Wellens reviews the contemporary status of women in physical geography in the United Kingdom, highlighting the numbers, career status and research, teaching and administration roles of female physical geographers in the academy. This quantitative review thus provides an overview of the who, what and where of female physical geogra- phers. Sarah Maguire follows with a discussion of gender in the arena of teaching fieldwork. Fieldwork, a particular kind of masculinist endeavour (Rose 1993), is usually an integral component of a geogra- phy degree. Sarah demonstrates how female and male undergraduates’ attitudes towards fieldwork vary, being linked to social constructions of mascu- linity and femininity. Such constructions of femininity are important in understanding women’s relationship with respect to the scientific tradition and the geo- graphic establishment of the late nineteenth century.

ISSN 0004-0894 0 Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 1998

196 Bee, Madge and Wellens

Discussing the production of knowledge about the physical environment by women travellers, Cheryl McEwan broadens the debate over gender and science to illustrate how a historical perspective can partially explain the masculinist construction of the discipline today.

While Cheryl documents gender differences in the construction of scientific knowledge, Becky Elmhirst proceeds to deconstruct such gender differences with respect to the actual use of natural resources in practice in the present day. Using an Indonesian case study, Becky highlights how gender divisions are rarely rigid and fixed, but rather are characterized by fluidity, complexity and ambivalence. Through a discussion of the intersection of gender divisions with other aspects of changing social identity (ethnicity, age, nationality), Becky considers some of the difficulties of reconciling feminist theory and multi-disciplinary research practice. Thus, this paper provisionally points the way towards a feminist engagement with the physical environment.

These papers have been selected to present an argument that moves from an examination of women’s roles and positions in physical geography, to an explanation of these positions through in- vestigation of the gendered nature of fieldwork, knowledge construction and natural resource man- agement. Whilst it is not possible fully to explore the complexities of the ongoing debate surrounding gender and physical geography in a few papers, we hope that this special section stimulates debate and leads to an exploration of the possibility of a feminist approach to understanding and conceptualizing physical geography.

Note The other paper presented at the conference (in addition to those in this special section) was ’Exploring a feminist physical geography’ by Denise Bates, University of Waikato. Denise presented her exciting exploration of the possibility of applying feminist theory to the methodologies of field research in physical geography, thus tentatively exploring the possibility of a feminist physical geography. Additionally, a more qualitative, in-depth exploration of the patterns presented in the paper by Dumayne-Peaty and Wellens provides the basis for a current research project by Anna Bee and Clare Madge. Through detailed interviews and small group discussions, the personal, political and

institutional relations that have shaped female physical geographers’ careers as scientists are examined (Bee and Madge in progress).

References

Bee A and Madge C (in progress) ’Gender and physical geography: interviews with female physical geographers’

Birke L (1 986) Women, feminism and biology (Wheatsheaf, Sussex)

Bleier R (1 984) Feminist approaches to science (Pergamon, New York)

Harding S (1 991 ) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Think- ing from women’s lives (Open University, Milton Keynes)

- (1992) ’How the women’s movement benefits science: two views’ in Kirkup G and Smith Keller L lnventing women: science, technology and gender (Polity Press, Cambridge), 5 7-72

Kirkup G and Smith Keller L (1992) Inventing women: science, technology and gender (Polity Press, Cambridge)

Luzzadder-Beach S and MacFarlane A (1 996) ’The environ- ment of gender and science: women in physical geogra- phy’ Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association of American Geographers, Charlotte, NC, April

McDowell L (1979) ’Women in British Geography’ Area 11,

- (1 992) ’Doing gender: feminism, feminists and research methods in human geography’ Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 1 7, 399-41 6

- (1 997) ‘Women, gender, feminisms: doing feminist geography‘ lournal of Geography in Higher Education 21, 381-400

McDowell L and Peake L (1 990) ‘Women in British geogra- phy revisited: or the same old story’ lournal of Geography in Higher Education 14, 19-30

Monk J (1 996) ’Partial truths: feminist perspectives in ends and means’ in Williams M (ed) Understanding geographi- cal and environmental education (Cassell Education, London), 274-86

Rose G (1993) Feminism and geography: the limits of geographical knowledge (Polity Press, Cambridge)

Schiebinger L (1993) Nature’s body: gender in the making of modern science (Beacon Press, Boston, MA)

Shepherd L J (1993) Lifting the veil: the feminine face of science (Shambhala, Boston, MA)

Women and Geography Study Group (1 997) Feminist geographies: explorations in diversity and difference (Longman, London)

Zelinsky W, Monk J and Hanson S (1982) ’Women and geography: review and prospectus’ Progress in Human Geography 6, 3 1 7-66

151-5