Bucknell University

From the SelectedWorks of Karen M. Morin

January 1, 1999

Emplacing Current Trends in Feminist Historical Geography Karen M. Morin, Bucknell University L. D. Berg

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/karen_morin/19/ This article was downloaded by: [Bucknell University] On: 23 June 2015, At: 06:37 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgpc20 Emplacing Current Trends in Feminist Historical Geography Karen M. Morin & Lawrence D. Berg Published online: 14 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Karen M. Morin & Lawrence D. Berg (1999) Emplacing Current Trends in Feminist Historical Geography, Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 6:4, 311-330, DOI: 10.1080/09663699924917 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09663699924917

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 to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and 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 Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial 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 Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 Gender,Place and C ulture, Vol. 6,N o. 4,pp. 3 11–3 30,19 99

EmplacingCurrentTrendsin Feminist Historical Geography

KARENM.MORIN, Department of Geography, Bucknell University, USA LAWRENCED.BERG, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Canada

ABSTRACT In this article, theauthors assess someof them ajor trends within anglophonic feminist historicalgeographyappearing in thedecade sin ce Rose &Ogborn calledfor thedevelop mentof an explicitly feminist approachto thesubŽ eld. In examining the‘ geography’of feminist historicalgeographies, threem aincategori es of scholarshipare evident :a‘new’historic algeograph yof North America, portions of whichare inform edby feminist theoriesandmethods; aBritish school of feminist historicalgeography witha focuson thediscipli ne of geography, geographicalknow ledgesand colonia lism/imperialism;and feminist historicalgeographyinterventions in culturalpolitics of spaceand place. A diversityof feminist methods andepistem ologies appearsacross theliteratu re. In anattem pttoavoida readingof thesetrends as betteror worse approximationsof historical‘progress’, theauthors conceptualize themas emplaced within anumberof speciŽc social andspatial context s.Most recentwork isconcernedwiththe producti on ofgenderdiffere nces asthey arew orkedthrough economic, political, culturalandsexu aldiffere nces in the creation of pastgeograp hies. Thecontinu edn eedsim ply to write women into historicalnarratives and geographies, however,is also evident. Thew ork of feminist historicalgeograp hy questions andchallen ges geography’s masculinist historicalrecord.

Introduction Adecadehas passedsince GillianRose &MilesOgborn (1988) Žrstargued for the developmentof an explicitlyfem inist historical geography. They noted thatw hile a numberof feminist historical geographies existed, none hadbeen produced by self-styled

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 historical geographers. Rather,fem inist historical geographies hadbeen produce dby eithernon-geogr aphersor byfem inist geographersidentifying themselveswith other subdisciplinaryaspects of geography(e.g.M cDowell &Massey, 1984; Walby,1986). This poseda signiŽcant problem,according toRose &Ogborn(1988, p.405), since ‘historical geography’signorance of feminism has resultedat bestin them arginalisation ofwomen, andat worst in theirtotal exclusion from thehistories which arecreated and taught by historical geographers’. Asthey andother feminist writersat the tim enoted, theresult of this wasthat it ‘ propagat[ed]an inaccurateunderstanding of thepast’ (1988, p.405; alsosee Kay, 1991, Monk &Hanson, 1982). Ten yearslater, m uch has changed in historical geography, butm uch has alsostayed thesam e(afterLee, 1990). In this articlew ediscuss some of therecent histories and geographies of feminist historical geography,outlining someof thecurrent trend sin the subdiscipline. Ourdocum entation is primarilypub lishedjournal articles appearin gin the Correspondence: KarenM .Morin, Department of Geography, BucknellUniversity ,Lewisburg, PA17837, USA; e-mail k [email protected] l .

ISSN0966-369X Print;1360-0524 Online/99/040311-20 Ó 1999 Taylor &FrancisLtd 311 312 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

major English-languagegeograph yjournals over thepast 8 to 10 years[1]. We attem pt to presentsome of thediversity of feminist approaches to historical geography,andw e hope to situatethese practices w ithin speciŽc intellectualm ilieus(see M onk, 1994). Asour reviewof feminism andhistorical geographywillillustrat e, arelativelylarge numberof feminist geographies have beenpublishe din recent years.A ccordingly,Rose &Ogborn’s callfor thedevelopm entof afeminist historical geographymightbe seen as having succeeded.Atthesam etime,however, feminist geographershave hadto push continuallyfor acceptanceof feminist theory—and just plain gender sensitivity— in historical geography. Afewyears subsequ entto Rose &Ogborn’s (1988) article,for example,Mona Domosh (1991) noted thecontinued failureamong historiographersof geographyto acknowledgethe gendered character of both thediscipline andthe historiographical accounts of ‘geographical traditions’. Asshe observed,‘therecent rewritingof thehistory of geographyhas ignored thegendered constructio nof that history’(1991, p.102). In thesame year, Jeanne Kay(1991, p.435) noted thecontinued ‘maleorientation andnear-abs ence of materialon women in North American regional historical geography, despitenearly 20 yearsof scholarly publications in women’s history’ (alsosee Kay, 1989, 1990). Geographical knowledgesandhistories arenot neutral;rather, they arebound up with powerrelations that work to erasecertain Others from geography(Rose, 1995). The ongoing necessity for continuallyadvocating feminist approachesin historical geography andhistoriogra phy issymptomaticof thecontinued masculinistinertia in academia. Part of this problemarises because ‘ gender’has often beenm istakenlycon ated with ‘women’. Thus, men who arenot necessarilyopposed to feminist historical geographies maybeinclined to avoid feminism becauseit is seen asa‘women’s issue’. On theother hand, thereare exam plesof strong, explicit resistanceto feminist geographyaswell(e.g. seeStoddart, 1991; Gould,1994). Howeverone readsthe resistance ofsome geographers tofeminism,thefact remains thathistorical geographershave generallybeenslow to take upfeminism [2]. Butw hatexactly is this arena,‘ historical geography’?Westart by deŽ ning feminist historical geographyaswork thatbrings both feminist andgeograph ical sensitivities to bearon thestudy of pastphenom ena. Becausew earesensitive to theexclusions that inhere in thedisciplina rypractices of geographyin generaland the historiogra phy of geographyin particular,wewantthis deŽnition tobeinclusive ratherthan exclusive .Our deŽnition of feminist historical geographyresonateswith, yetalso d ivergesfrom, those of

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 our predecessors (Rose& Ogborn, 1988; Kay,1991), andit re ects recentthinking in both feminism andgeograph y.Rose &Ogborn(1988, p.406) deŽned fem inist historical geographyas‘exploring in detailthe processes andpractices of patriarchy, often stressing theresistance ofboth womenandm ento patriarchalpressures’. They arguedthat while geographershave attemptedto clarify theform spatriarchyhas takenhistoricall y involving space, placeand landscap e, those analysesalso needed to takegender into account. Rose &Ogbornfocused on localitystudies, w hereasK ay(1991) andDom osh (1991) discussedwomen’s narrativesoftravelor pioneering ascorrectivesto gender-blind historical geographies. Anglophone feminist historical geographies todaym ove beyond those deŽnitions and topics in subtlew ays. While simplywriting w omen into historical geographyremains common, many currentfem inist historical geographies demonstratea more fundamental interestin theproduct ion of genderdifference sthemselves, andthe w aysgender differenceswork within andthrough economic, political, culturaland sexual difference s in thecreation of pastgeograph ies. Thus, theprocess of writingw omen into thepast Trends in Feminist Historical Geography 313

itselfinvolves negotiating acomplexinterplay of many axesof difference within particularspatial–historical contingencies.The goalsof this work rangefrom discovering how one enacts citizenship (e.g.Cope, 1998a) or participatesin theact of nation-build- ing (e.g.Johnson, 1995), to how publicspace is createdand accessed (e.g.Boyer, 1998), to how colonial spacesreconŽ gure the gendered and racialise didentitiesof home(e.g. Blunt1994), to therole of thestate in constituting heterosexuality(Nast, 1993), and more. In one ofthefew explicitlym ethodologicalstatementsm adeabout the practice of feminist historical geographyover thelast decade, Dom osh (1997, p.227; alsosee Gregson &Rose, 1997, pp.13– 48) drawson thework of historian Joan Scott (1992) in arguingfor ‘historical geograph[ies]of difference’.The practiceof historical geography in her framework (andours) becomes thestudy not of Žxedand autonomou sauthors andthe landscap esthey created,but of thebroad, historicall ycontingent social and spatialconditions outof which authorsand landscap esproduce one another. OurdeŽ nition of feminist historical geographycan alsobe clariŽed by consideringthe deŽnitions posedby Philo (1994) andOverton (1994). For Philo, historical geography oughtto besom ething more akin to ‘geographicalhistory’ (1994, p.254). Hearguesfor amove awayfrom the‘ entrenched historicism’thathas dominatedsocial studies of all types,tow arda ‘spatialisedform of historical inquiry’(1994, pp.272– 278). Philo rightly assumesa moredynamic relationshipbetween society andspace than has often been apparentin anglophonehistorical geography. Overton (1994, p.246) deŽnes historical geographyas‘ thehu mangeography of thepast’ . Hedistinguishes betweenthe work of those who consider themselvespart of this ‘self-conscious’discipline (orsubdisci pline), whose primeconcern liesw ith thestudy of thepast, and other geographersw ho also makereference to thepast although their prim econcern liesw ith thepresent (1994, p. 246). Overton’s (1994) distinction between geographersfocused on thepast and those interestedin thepresent is alsohelpful, prim arilybecause w ewantto focus our discussionupon those geographersw hom webelieve self-consc iously identify ashistori- calgeograph ers—and w eseethese people as primaril yinterestedin ‘geographies of the past’. Thatsaid, wewouldqualify Overton’ s distinction bysaying thateven geographies of thepast are concerned withthe present, even if they do not explicitlynarrate a contemporarysituation. Histories arealmost alw ays‘ presentist’; they narratethe past in orderto providesom eunderstanding of thepresent (Rose, 1995; Gregson &Rose, 1997). In so doing, they assume—often implicitly—alinear relationshi pof causality, rationalityand progress betw een somepastevents, knowledge, or personalities and

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 present-daycircums tances andactors. They alsotend to valorise temporalrelations at theexpense of spatialrelations (Soja, 1989). In focusing on the geographies of feminist historical geographywehope to avoid the implicit construction of ateleologyof linearprogress am ong feminist epistemologies. One of theproblem sof presentisthistories is thatthey tendto construct history as progress:whathappened in thepast has now beenimproved upon in thepresent. In so doing, presentisthistories often construct aspeciŽc linearprogress ion towards auniversalpinnacle of theoreticaldevelopm ent, often erasingsigniŽ cant Othersfrom thecanon (Gregson &Rose, 1997). In orderto counter such notions of progress andim provement, wewantto beginthe process of writinga geographyof feminist historical geographies. Wewant to suggestthat certain theoreticalapproach esin feminist geographyhave speciŽc emplacedhistories. In this way, wemightavoid, or at leastreduce, the tendency to construct atripartite(liberal– socialist– p ost-structuralist) feminist geographythatconstruct scertainfeminism sasless sophisticat edthan others. Instead,we suggest that different feminismscan beread as strategic reactions to, and 314 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

therefore constitutedw ithin, speciŽc setsof geographicallycontingent social relations(see, for example,M onk, 1994). Geographers have drawnupon multipleconceptions of spacein theirwork (Sack, 1980; John Pickles, 1985; Simonsen, 1996), andthis has implications for thew aythatw e ‘emplace’fem inist historical geography.Geographers have conceptualizedspace in three ways: asmaterial environm ent, asdifference ,andas social spatiality(Sim onsen, 1996). Wedraw upon thelatter tw oconceptions—difference andsocial spatiality—for our approachto emplacingfeminist geography.To seespace as difference is to acknowledge that‘ different places,regions orlocalities aresubstant iallydifferent— in amaterialas well asanimmaterialsense— and that this difference inuences social processes andsocial life’ (Simonsen, 1996, p.499). In this sense, then, wewouldexpect to Žnd differencesin the kinds of feminist historical geographies producedin thevarying social processes of different places.We attempthere to illustratesom eof thew aysthat space has thusm ade adifference in theproductio nof feminist historical geographies. Wealso know that spatialform sarean integralpart of social practicesand processes ,andthat such social spatiality‘ has to betheorised asafundamentalhum anandsocial dimension’(Sim onsen, 1996, p.503; alsosee Soja, 1989). Socio-spatialityinvolves acomplexset of interrelated processes,butit generall yrefersto theconstant recursiverelationshi pbetween thespatial andthe social. Inthis regard,space is socially produced,butat thesam etime,spaceitself is productiveof thesocial. Emplacingfem inist historical geographyin this sense, then, wouldhelp us to under- standthe social production of historical geographic knowledge,and the spatial pro- duction of social geographies. Emplacementmight thus be seen asa wayof contextualizing feminist historical geographywithin anumberof social andspatial settings.Such contexts mightinclude (but w ouldnot belim itedto) the context of the widerdiscipline of geography,thecontext of theoreticaland m ethodologicaldebates in geography, thecontext of training (such asthe schools of thoughtand m aterialplaces wherefem inist historical geographyis taught)and the context of publishinghistorical geographies. Ourarticle suggests a numberof waysof understanding someof these contexts, butwe hope thatothers mighttake this project furtherw ith more substantive analysesof thesocial spatialityof feminist historical geography. The work examinedhere has beenproduce dbypeople whom wethink self con- sciously identify (atleast in part)as historical geographers. Werecognize thatthis strategy introducesanumberof problems, not leastof which is knowing which geographers

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 identify ashistorical geographers. In other contexts theirw ork maybeviewedaspolitical geography, urbangeograph y, post-colonialgeograph y, or anumberof others. Our designationmightalso serve to reinforce an ideaabout a subdisciplinarydivide that is nolongervalid, given theblurring of subdisciplinaryboundar ies arising from thecultural andlinguistic turnsin geography. Furthermore, becauseso fewacadem ic institutions activelysearch for strictly‘ historical geographers’in theirhiring processes (atleast during thelast 10 years),perhaps m any historical geographershave moved awayfrom this designationfor professionalreasons. In theUK, for example,a signiŽcant numberof newerscholars who publishas historical geographerstend to have beenhired to supplementresearch clusters in social andcu lturalgeograph yratherthan historical geography. Nevertheless, wefeel thelabel historical geographyprovides an appropriatestarting point to our project. Ourapproach is necessarilylimitedin scope andobjectives. We have structuredthe principal areas of studyby fem inist historical geographersin three main categories:North American ‘newhistorical geographies’; critiquesof thehistory of Trends in Feminist Historical Geography 315

geographyandEuropea nempire-building;and feminist interventions in culturalpolitics of spaceand place. Although there has beenm uch work undertaken byfem inist economic geographersthat draw supon historical explanations to understand present economic conditions (e.g.Massey, 1994), wedidnot feelthese geograph ies appropriately ŽtourdeŽ nition of self-conscious historical geography, andthus, they arenot included in our discussion. In one sense our account can beseen to reinscribesomeoftheEurocentr ic character of much geographic writing, becauseit does not discuss historical geographyscholarship outsideof theEnglish-sp eaking Westernworld. Our attem ptat spatializ ing thepractice of feminist historical geographyis to beginthe process of ‘worlding’Western fem inist historical geography(afterBarnes & Gregory, 1997). Wewantto makeit clear, then, that our(historical )geographyof contemporaryfem inist historical geographyis speciŽc to certain anglophonegeographies andnot universalto allof feminist historical geography. Ourhope is thatour w ork willspur others to recount other geographies of geography as well. In whatfollow s, then, wediscuss threeapproach esto Anglo feminist historical geography:newhistorical geographies ofNorth America, feminist historical geographies ofempire,and identity politics andthe cultural turn in feminist historical geography.We realisethat it is difŽcult to balancebetw een over-generalization in representingfem inist historical geographyandthe problem of overcontextualization inherent in tryingto accommodateevery subtlety of theory oranalysisin ourrepresen tation. Wehope,onthe one hand, thatour broad categoriza tion provides ausefulorganizatio nalfram ework, and on theother hand, thatw ehave alsomanaged to representthediversity within each of thethree categories w eoutline.

New HistoricalGeographies ofNorth America Evidence of whatm ightbe called a ‘newhistorical geography’of theUSA andCanada isemerging, portions ofwhich areinform edbyfeminist theories andmethods. While the traditionalarenascarved out in thehistorical geographyof English-speakingNorth America areim portantones— exploratio nofthecontinent, frontier expansion, settlement patternsand sequence ,environmentalchange, andem ergingurban and econom ic integration—insights gainedfrom post-colonial,fem inist, or critical social theories have not generallybeenincorpora tedinto much of thesubŽ eld. In fact, this subŽeld often

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 seemslike one of thelast bastions of an empiricalgeograp hy complicitwith m asculinist languageandvalues. The recentthree-volu meseries on NorthA merican exploration editedby John Allen(1997), for instance, successfullyb rings togethera rich arrayof geographical andhistorical detail.A tthesam etime,the series attests to theproblem sof measuringcontributio ns to ‘geographicalknowledg e’based on beingthe Ž rst,covering thefarthest distance, or accumulatingthe m ost specimens, goods, or information. AnnetteKolodny (1975, 1984) wouldhave aŽeldday w ith allof the‘ thrusting’and ‘penetrating’of newlands by the bold m en describedin thesevolum es. The epistemic andcritical framework of such works leaveslittle room for posing the most importantquestions aboutthe historical geographyof thecontinent, such ashow patriarchaland capitalis tic incentives workedtogether to enableand support these men’ s journeys aswellas thehost ofother social, political, andeconomic processes thatquickly transformedthe continent afterthe arrival of theEuropea ns. Itseem sclearthat self-reective andcritical analysesof American imperialismitself have beenhistoricall y neglectedby the subŽ eld. 316 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

Arefreshing turnin thehistorical geographyof NorthA mericahas recentlybegun to takeshape though, focusing mainly on theA merican Westand inspired greatlyby the ‘neww esternhistory’ Ž rstarticula tedby Patricia Limerick (1987), WilliamCronon (1991) andothers. In his reviewof neww esternhistory, GerryKearns (1998) calledfor a‘newhistorical geography’that would bring together in apolitically-informedway, the relationshipsbetween‘ facts’and ‘ values’. This entailsmoving awayfrom thepersisten t myths of theWest that have formedso much apartof theA merican popularculture andself-consc iousness, towardinterpret ations oftheWest as, for instance, thesite of the production of natureinto capital.While radicalcritiques have beenvirtually absent from much North American historical geography, they have now been appearingmore regularly, such asin therecent special issues of Antipode (1998) and Ecumene (1998). In his Ecumene essay, Don Mitchell(1998) arguesthat new Western historians hold to a Sauerianinterpreta tion of Westernlandscap es, andare ignoring to theirdetrim entthe more usefulsocial constructivist argumentsw idelyadvanced in geography. Mitchell’s (1996) praiseworthy book alsointroduce dacritical historical geographyapproachto American imperialism,byexam ining theexploitation of agriculturallabour in the creation of theCalifornia landscapeandresistance strugglesto it. While Mitchell’s andother critical historical geographies of theWest are certainly a stepin theright direction, more remainsto bedone in linking different formsof radical geography.Mitchell’s (1996) work problematizesthe racialisat ion of theCalifornia labor force, butit unfortuna telydisplays the all-too-co mmon problemof overwritinggender issuesw ith those of classor race. Mitchellall but ignores thew aysthat constru ctions of genderdifference createdunique problem sfor women labourerstryingto negotiate moveablework sitesand their d omestic andreprodu ctive work in thelabour camps (or athome for thatm atter,when theirfam ily membersmigrated for work). Women’s historians continue to provide geographerswith some of theb estm odelsfor how to incorporatem igratorywom en into earlyUS agriculturaland m ining campwork (see, for instance, Ruiz, 1998). Thus, weŽnd itnecessary to makethe seemingl yregressive complaintthat ‘ women’still seem to bem issing from someof them ost inuential critical work in NorthAm erican historical geography. Especiallydisappoi nting is the gender-blindness evidentin therecent special issues of Antipode (1998) and Ecumene (1998) (for an exception, seeCraddoc k,1998, p.70). The all-too-familiarobservati ons madeby Jeanne Kayyears ago (1989, 1990, 1991) stillseem relevant, inclu dingthat historical geographies of theUSA andCanada are

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 often gender-blindand/ or do not incorporatewomen’s spheresof inuence. That said, itis importantto bereminded of Joan Scott’s (1988) caution thatsim ply uncoveringinformation aboutw omensaysnothing aboutthe relative importan ceplaced on themor theirw ork andactivities. For this weneed to understand theorigins of genderdifference s, particularlyin spatio-historical momentsthat seem to punctuate themin durablesorts of ways. While much of thehistorical geographyof North Americahas yetto beconsistentl y informed byfem inist theories andm ethods, many geographershave recentlyresponde d to Kay’s (1991) criticismsandproduce darecognizablebody of work thatproblem atizes thehistorical constructionofdifference aroundthe interwork ings ofgender,race, ethnic, culturalandclass difference sin theanglophon ic USA,Canadaand M exico. Landscape interpretation studieshave occupied aprominentposition in American culturalgeogra- phy, andfem inist interventionsin themw erehighly inuenced by Norw ood &Monk’s path-breaking editedcollection, TheD esert is NoLady (1987). Recentand noteworthy among thehistorical works informedby su ch alternativeimaginingsof women’s Trends in Feminist Historical Geography 317

relationshipswith theland include Jeanne Kay’s (1997) studyof UtahMormon pioneer women’s concepts of landand nature— not asfem aleor mother buttied to biblicalm etaphorssuch asGod’ s handiwork or instrumentof retributivejustice. Readinghistorical landscapesas narrative sthatfunction to createinclusiona ryand exclusionaryconcepts of nation, citizenship, or ‘belongingness’has long beena concern of feminist geography(see,for instance, Monk, 1992a). In thatvein Gulley(1993) describesthew aysthat Confedera tewhitewom enwererepresen tedin historical markers andm onuments in theSouth duringthe Civil Warperiod, arguingthat these w omen andtheir represen tations helpedproduce a patriarchalregional consciousn ess and culture. Newways of discussingother traditionalareas of North American historical geography areem erging,such asthose relatedto ethnic migration andsettlem entpatterns and labourrelations and m ovements. These areoften informedb yminority women’s experiences, discussedbyliterary critics andhistorians such asDeutsch (1987) and Anzaldu´a(1987), andseek to shednew light on American andEuropea nimperial processes. NadineSchuurm an (1998), for example,analysesFirst Nation women’s mobility in andthrough EuropeanandN ativecom munities in theinterior of British Columbiain thesecond half of thenineteenth- century. Schuurman arguesthat many Nativew omen marriedearly white settlers and miners toavoid diseaseand the perceive d limitations of theirindigenous communities, yetwere displace dasmarriage partners by agrowing numberof marriageable,im migratingwhite w omen beginning in the1890s. Shuurman’s work formspartof theUniversity of British Columbiaschool of historical geographythathas beencritically exam ining theprocesses of colonialism in Western Canada(e.g. Galois, 1993–94; Harris& Galois, 1994; Harris,1997), butto our knowledgehers is theŽ rstfeminist intervention into thesecontested historical geogra- phies. One currentarea of emphasis in North American feminist historical geographyis the spatialisation andpolitics of identityform ation. Many studiestie the m utualconstitution of genderand ethnicity with theirim pacton prejudicialemploym entpatterns of immigrants,access topublicspaces, andthe p ractice ofpolitics (e.g.Deutsch, 1994, 1998; Estrada,1998; Cope, 1998b). Such works have beenaided by the developm entof different understanding oftherelationsh ipbetw een ‘race’and gender. A udreyK obayashi &Linda Peake(1994), for example,have attemptedto ‘unnaturalize’the discours esof raceand gend ercom mon to many geographic narratives.The mutualconstitution of

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 ethnicity/raceand gender provid ethetheoretical contexts of recent studieson historical labourrelations, andin thatsense, feminist work has encouragedashift in North American historical geographyawayfrom arural–agrarian toward a moreurban– social focus. SarahDeutsch (1998), in her commentaryon articlesin aspecialissue of Historical Geography devotedto genderand the city (volume26, 1998), demonstratesthe m ultiple differencesbetweenthe experience sof immigrantItalian and Jewish garmentw orkers andIrish telephoneoperators in earlytwentieth-c enturyBoston. These labouringwomen haduneven access to publicprotest and public space because they haddifferent setsof alliesin unions, thepolice force, e´litew omen’s organizations andthe city’ s political machinery (alsosee Deutsch, 1994). Similarly,Estrada (1998) examines threegroups of labouringwomen (prostitutes,factory workers, andstreet vendors) in Tijuana, Mexico, showing thatthe spatial regulatio nof women’s work in publicspaces was linked to the city’s economic changes betweenits inception in 1889 andthe present. Drawing on Doreen Massey’s (1994) ideasabout place as ‘ constellations of relations’, 318 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

Meghan Cope(1998b) has examinedthe ways that the social andeconomic relationsin andbetween hom eandw ork in thew oollen millsin Lawrence, Massachusettscon- tributedto thesocial constructionof place.H erw ork illustrateshow speciŽc social relationsof genderand ethnicity were(re)prod uced throughintersecting divisions of labourand m ultipleaxes of social division. Boyer (1998), in her studyof clericalw orkers in latenineteenth- andearly tw entieth-centuryM ontreal,argu esthat fem aleclerical workers’presence in anduse of publicspace w asm ediatedthrough ideas of respectabil- ity. She highlights thefact thatthese w orkers challengedmeanings of respectabilityby maintaining professions in thepublic Ž nancial sector, spacesin which allbut ‘ fallen’ women wereformerly ‘ outof place’(1998, p.272). Genderednotions of citizenship,community andhistorical contextualizations of the many social andspatial constraints involved inthepractice of publicpolitics has received someattentionin feminist historical geography(Cope, 1998a; Mattingly,1998a, 1998b). Mattingly(1998b), for instance, describeshow identitypolitics formedarou nd or against theagendas of the‘ anti-feminist’Christian rightw ereinstrum entalin producingnotions of alocal, place-basedcomm unity in Vista,California in theearly 1990s. Cope (1998a) is alsoconcerned with limited,exclusiona ryand gendered historical constructions of citizenship andcomm unity basedon institutionalpolitics andliberalis m’snotions of individualrightsand responsib ilities. She arguesthat white settler wom enin nineteenth- centuryColorado enactedcitizenship in everyday,extra-institutional ways, bybuilding andm aintaining multiplereciproca lrelationsand netw orks of home, family and community in anewplace. Such studiesare implicitl yinformed byhistorian Joan Scott’s argumentthat public, institutiona lizedforms of politics andgovernm entare lim itedin theextent to which they can reect wom en’s statushistoricall y(1989, pp.680–681). Scott arguesfor moving beyond thenotion thatpolitics is relatedto formaloperations of governmentto adeŽnition thatmore broadly assesses all contests for power.The writing of history to Scott, then, is apoliticalexercise that‘ both reects andcreates relations of power’(1989, p.681). Issuesof community buildingand citizenship parallelworks thatfocus on the genderingof urbansocial space more generally, most especiallyin theircollapse of the public–private dichotom y. Consistent with largertrends in feminist geography, the genderingof urbansocial spaces, atm any scales, is probablythem ost studiedarea of recenthistorical geographies of North America. Women’s ‘homeextendedoutw ard’in urbansocial work continues to receive attention, such asM cGurty’s (1998) studyof

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 Chicago’s settlementhouse workers atthe turn of thecentury, andtheir efforts at garbagereform andneighbour hood organizing for women(alsosee K atiePickles, 1998). Considerablescholarly interesthas alsoformed aroundquestions relatedto the historicity of thecreation of publicspaces, therelative ‘ democracy’or accessibility of public spacesto various social groups,and the m utualconstitution andinterrelat ionships of publicand private spaces. Severalauthors illustrate links between culturalor legal practicesand the productio nof publicspace at the turn of thetwentieth-c entury, providing historical groundingfor contemporaryissues about the gendering of certain public spaces. These includedowntown shopping areasof USeastcoast cities (e.g. Domosh, 1996, 1998), apublicpark of SanFrancisco (e.g.Schenker, 1996), and Vancouver’sstreetsafter midnight (e.g. Boyer, 1996). Domosh (1998) arguesthat the streetsof nineteenth-centuryNew Y ork City werethe scenes ofslight,everyday ‘ tactical’ transgressions, such aswom en performing bourgeois respectabilityat the w rong timeof day(after 4 pm,when they shouldhave beenat home). And,in examining three historical momentsin theU SAandUK, Bondi &Domosh (1998) provide evidence Trends in Feminist Historical Geography 319

thatprescrib edregulatio ns aboutgender divisions anddistinctions betweenp ublic andprivate spaces persist to today,especiall ythose linked to women’s fearof sexual danger.

FeministHistoricalGeographies ofEmpire Unlike theN orth American historical geographytraditionthat has only recentlyb egun to drawfrom critical social theory to assessA merican imperialism,Britain’s historical geographyhas hada long, self-reective (if sometimesneo-im perialist)tradition exam in- ing thelinks betweencolonialism ,empirebuilding, and the history ofgeography(Driver, 1992; Berg& Kearns, 1998; butsee Kaplan & Pease,1993). Most scholarshipon the history of geographyhas focused on questions aboutthe form ation of professional geographical societies andgeograph yasan academic discipline (Driver, 1996). Within this disciplinaryfocus itappears that a uniquely‘ British’(primar ily Englishand Scottish) school of feminist historical geographyhas emergedthat is likewiseconcerned with the history of geography,particularlywith the patriarch al‘disciplining’of thediscipline —its exclusionarytradition, masculinist culturalvalues and language ,andcreation of boundaries aroundw hatcounts as‘ geographicalknow ledge’. Partlyas a reaction againstthis, much of thefeminist historical geographywithin the ‘British’system has beenconcerned withthe nature of historical narrativesthemselves, andwom en’s (relative)participation in geographyandEuropea nempirebuilding m ore generally, especiallyin thenineteenth andearly twentieth centuries (Dom osh, 1991; Rose, 1993, 1995; Bell& McEwan, 1996; Phillips, 1997; Maddrell,1998; McEwan, 1998a; alsosee M onk, 1992b for asimilaragenda in an American context). Historical geographershave beensceptical of not only thecontent of geography’shistorical narratives, buttheir rhetoric andstructur easw ell(see, for example,Rose, 1993, 1995; Women andGeograph yStudyGroup, 1997; McEwan, 1998a). GillianRose (1993, 1995) has calledattention to not only theEurocent rismof thegeograph ical tradition, but alsoits phallocen trismand m asculinism andits effacem entof women from thehistories of geographies. She commentsthat, ‘ Importantly,this erasureof those others ignored as outsidersfrom accounts of thetradition also works to erasethe practice of exclusion itself. Their completeinvisibility makesthe practice of theirexclusion vanish’(1995, p. 414). While itis importantto point outthat others besidesthe w hite, male,heterosexu al

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 protagonistsof geography’snormative history have producedgeographical knowledge, more fundamentalquestions have alsobeen raised about the relationsh ipbetween certain typesof geographies andthe construct ion of genderd ifference itself. Asalready noted, Domosh (1991) exposed thecontinued failuream ong historiographersof geogra- phy to acknowledgethe gendered character of geographical knowledge.M any writers respondedto Domosh’s assertion thatw omen wereexcluded from themale explorato ry traditionbecause their views andactivities didnot conform tothestandard sof‘scientiŽc’ inquiry. Somewomen wereexcluded from membershipin Britain’s RoyalG eographical Society simplybecause they werew omen, others becausetheir w ork wasconsidere d amateurishor unscientiŽc (Bell& McEwan, 1996; McEwan,1998b). Domosh (1991) arguedthat w omen (such asIsabella Bird) travelling and exploring within thecontext of patriarchalVictorian genderrelations often produceddifferent typesof geographies from theirm alecounterp arts.She wrotethat the ‘ so-calledob jective discoveriesofnewplaces werenot separatedfrom thed iscoveries of[thewom en]them selves’(1991, p.97). While Domosh’s piece stimulatedmuch dialogueabout the history of geographyandwom en’s 320 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

placesin it, severalw riterscautioned againsther seemingobliviousn ess to privileged white women’s participation in colonialism andim perialism,andthe potential backlas h her thesis heldfor producingessentialized genderedgeograph ies (see,for instance, Blunt &Rose, 1994, p.9; Rose, 1995, p.415). Thus, thegoal of much of thefeminist historical geography throughoutthedecad e within this framework has beento expose thenot-so-innoc entpart that wom en—military andadm inistrators’wives, missionaries,travelw riters,tourists, nurses and others— played in imperialism,andthe contrib utions thatwom en madeto colonial andim perial discourses.Primaryw rittensources such asautobiographies, travelnarrative s,diariesand lettershave remainedim portantsources for reconstructing or reinterpretingpast places andlandscap esfrom women’s point of views, aswell as in demonstratingim perial women’s uneasyor ambivalentassociation swith Europeanempirebuilding . Feminist historical geographersare w ellattuned to post-structuralisttheories and approaches in theirstudies of colonial andpost-colon ialdiscours es, andthe ways in which culturalforms such astravelogu eshelp edfacilitate exploitativ epracticesin the colonies. Scholars have moved awayfrom simplyadding w omen to traveland explo- ration accounts, towardtheorizing women’s imperialistm otives in theirtravels abroad, questioningauthorial‘ intention’, andproblem atizing theways that w omen negotiated thecom plexm aterialand discursiv ewebsof powerin thecolonies (especiallyin India andAfrica) and at home. The fragmentednature of women’s (andm en’s) subjectivi ties across spacehas received considerableattention (Blunt, 1994; Blunt& Rose, 1994; Schaeffer, 1994; McEwan, 1994, 1996; Gregory, 1995; Mills,1996; Phillips, 1997; Kearns, 1997). Mills(1996) challengestheŽ xity of colonial spatialboundar ies in British India byshowing theways that British men andw omen andindigenous women manoeuvredamong differently genderedspaces, including transgressing theboundar ies of women’s ‘conŽned’ spaces. Alison Blunt(1994) provides an explicitlyspatialise d conception of MaryKingsley’ s travels,d emonstrating her changing subjectpositions as she moved from Englandto WestA frica andback again in thelate nineteenth-c entury. Comparingthe letters of Florence NightingaleandGustave Flauber tduringtheir journeys to 1840s Egypt,Derek Gregory(1995) examines theways that the difference s in theirphysical passagesproduce dhighly gendered‘ imaginative’geograph ies. Works often citedin geography(such asMills, 1991; Blunt& Rose, 1994) alsohave emphasizedtensions betweenim perialismand a particularform of conventional,bour- geois, Victorian femininity, andthe w aysthat it com binedwith imperial discourse sof

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 race, classand nation. The mutualconstitution of racial/ethnic andgender difference in thecolonies has received considerableattention (Blake, 1990; Blunt,1994; McEwan, 1996; Morin, 1998), much of itfram edaround questions initiallyposed by post-colonial literarytheorists such asMaryLouise Pratt(1992) andEdward Said (1978). Geographers have shown, for instance, thatBritish women’s whiteness alignedthem w ith theruling powerand thus reconŽ gured their spatial fram eworks in thecolonies (e.gM cEwan, 1996). Otherscholars have conceptualizedform sof British imperialismand Victorian gender relationsoutside of theBritish empirein women’s travelnarrative s,such astheA merican West,Mexico, or other Europeancolonial context (Georgi-Findlay,1996; Morin, 1998, 1999; Morin &KayGuelke, 1998; Garcia-Ramon et al.,1998). These works examine historicallyandspatially contingent concepts ofdifference asEuropeanwomen travellers negotiatedencounter swithpeople such asNativew omen in thecontext ofempire-build- ing (Garcia-Ramon et al.,1998; Morin, 1998). Garcia-Ramon andcolleague s(1998) moved thediscussio nof imperialtravel writing to Spanish colonial Morocco, arguing Trends in Feminist Historical Geography 321

thatA uroraBertrana ’s1936 narrativep rojects aSpanish colonial mission thatis deeply ambivalent,registering as it does with other Westernfem inismsin her portrayalof Muslimw omen. McEwan(1998a), Morin &KayG uelke(1998) andothers alsohave opened discus- sions linking historical geographywiththe insights of post-colonial critiquesof subaltern subjectivity, agency andresistance tocolonialism andim perialism(after Spivak, 1988), in both American andBritish contexts. Morin &KayG uelke(1998) examine theefforts of Mormon polygamouswivesto counteracttheirnegative public im agesin nineteenth-cen- turyUtah, by presentin gapositive viewof thepractice to British women travellers. McEwan (1998a) explicitlyexam ines theproblem atics of combining feminist and post-colonialapp roaches in thehistory andhistoriogra phy of geography.She arguesthat writingm ore inclusive histories of geographywillinvolve moving beyond adisciplinary focus to interrogating whiteness asw ellas reading strategies of resistance of objectiŽed others. She suggests,for instance, thepossibilitie sof readingM aryK ingsley’s travelsin WestAfrica asstructur edaround the m otivations andinterests of WestAfrican moun- taineeringguides. Tourism,asa gendered,classed, racialize dandsexualize dprocess, has takenon specialsigniŽ cance in historical works, especiallyas m any touristdestination swere establishedw ithin thecontext of Euro-American colonialism or imperialism.Most women’s access to travelw asseverely lim iteduntil transpor tation technologies, the construction of newtourist sites such asnational parksin theA merican andCanadian Wests,and the advent of professionaltouristagencies, such asThom asCook’s in 1850s Egypt,m adetravel respecta bleand safe for leisuredclass wom en (e.g.Squire, 1995). Recentfem inist historical geographycritiquesof tourismhave focused on thew aysin which genderdifference situateswom en in feminized job categoriesin historical places, theway in which social forces positioned womenmateriallyand discursiv elyas particular kinds of consumersof historical touristsites, andpositioned women asproducer sof culturalknowledgeaboutthem, especiall yin writtentexts (Tow ner, 1988; Ringer,1998; Cyndi Smith, 1989; Wynn, 1990; Squire,1993, 1995; Kinnaird& Hall,1994). Squire (1995), for instance, documentswom en’s contributions to regionaldevelopm entof tourismin theCanadian Rockies from 1885 to1939 asexplorers, scientists, alpinistsand, genteeltourists, follow ing completion of theCanadian PaciŽ c Railroadinto thatregion.

Identity Politics andtheCulturalTurnin FeministHistoricalGeography Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 Upto this point, wehave presentedtwo ‘ schools’of feminist historical geography.While itis difŽcult to drawclear boundar ies in such instances, itis plausiblethat the ‘geographies ofempire’can beassociatedw ith British feminist approaches to geography, while—as the title suggests— the ‘ newhistorical geographies of North America’can be associatedw ith Canadianand A merican approachesto feminist geography. This would accord withJanice Monk’s (1994) recentassessm entof British andAm erican schools of feminist geography. Monk (1994, pp.282– 283) arguesthat research in theU SAhas tendedto drawupon aliberaltradition, while British feminists have tendedto bem ore inclined towardssocialist andM arxist-inspiredfem inisms.Monk (1994, p.283) wenton to observe, however, thatthe ‘ recentturn to postmodernism,culturalstudies, and issues of diversitym ightbring the tw oschools into closer alignment’. She seemsto beright. The culturalturn in geographyin general(e.g. Cosgrove & Daniels, 1988; Jackson, 1989), alongwith the attendant use of post-colonial,post- structural,and postmode rntheories andapproac hes, has madeit m uch more difŽcult to 322 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

discern differencesbetweenA merican andBritish approaches in feminist geography(see McDowell,1993). Veryrecent work in feminist historical geographyfrom manydifferent localestends to bemore and m ore difŽcult to differentiatealong lines of theoreticalor epistemological orientation. And like anglophonic feminist geographymore generally (e.g. Jones et al.,1997; Women andGeograp hyStudyGroup, 1997), post-structuraland post-colonialapproach esto thestudy of identityand difference have tendedto takeon specialsigniŽ cance for feminist historical geographersw orking from (orundertak ing researchw ithin) manyplaces in addition to Britainand the USA . Despitewhat w eseeas some homogenizing tendencies in thecultural turn, som e geographical variations in approachcan bediscerned .Many British feminists interested in theissue of empire,for example,have triedto deconstructthegendered character of British imperialism.Perhapsbecauseof theirown position asboth coloniser and colonized (Morris, 1992; Berg& Kearns,1998), feminists from formerlycolonized places have been ableto enunciate critiquesof masculinism, racismand nationalism from within anti-colonialmovements.A ccordingly,theiranalyses often differ signiŽcantly from those producedin them etropoles.Nuala Johnson (1994) andCatherine Nash (1996), for instance, both look to them utualconstitution ofdiscoursessurroundingm asculinity and nationhood in Irish oppositionalmovements. Johnson’s (1994) examination of the monumentscomm emoratingthe centenary ofthe1798 Irish rebellionagainst the English in County Wexford, Ireland,show swaysthat anti-colonia lmovementscan beas oppressive ascolonial administrations.She arguesthat m onumentserected as part of the centenary celebrations drewupon aromantic clericalvision which constructednarratives of manlyIrish peasantsŽ ghtingfor (anddefending )afeminine ‘Ireland’(also see Johnson, 1995). Historical work in non-metropolitancountries in Africa or theCaribbe an offers new insights into dominant theorizationsof social–spatial relations as well(Nast, 1993, 1996; Cockerton,1996; Pulsipher, 1997; Robinson, 1998a, 1998b). Jennifer Robinson (1998a), for instance, examines them anagementof South African housing estatesm odelledon principlesof ‘friendly surveillance’develop edbytheLondon philanthropist OctaviaH ill duringthe Victorian period. Robinson’s analysisof theOctavia H illhousing managers provides ausefulempirica lcase on which to recastFoucault’ s theory of poweras friendship.Drawing on her studyof OctaviaHill w omen housing managersin South Africa for asecond paper,Robinson (1998b) furthercritiques current theorization softhe stateas gendered masculin e. The fact thata speciŽc form of femininity playedan

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 importantrole in theconstitution of awidespreadpractice of statehousing provision conicts with (northern)theories ofthestate which seeit constituted in masculineterm s. Accordingly,this work from South Africa helpsremind us ofthenecessity for emplacing feminist theories. In asimilarvein, Heidi Nast’s (1996) ‘spatialarchaeolog y’of thegendered and sexualizedrelationsin theKano Palace,Northern Nigeria, circa 1500, provides afeminist critiqueof them asculinism inherent in many Foucauldian analysesof discursivepower. Insteadof focusing on hegemonic (masculine) discursivepractices,she is concerned ‘with mundaneand m aterially uidrelations and practices ’such asbodily and socio-spat ially mediatedpractices like wom en’s seclusion,cooking, andchild-rea ring. In illustrating someof thew aysthat the state and society weregendered and sexualize dvia relations of hetero-patriarchy (alsosee N ast,1993), her work shows how different spatialpraxes wereimp licatedin theproducti onandreprodu ction of genderedand (hetero)s exualized identities. While geographershave contributedmuch to ourundersta nding of thespatialitie sof Trends in Feminist Historical Geography 323

‘race’and racism (e.g. Jackson, 1987; SusanJ. Smith, 1989; Anderson, 1991), until critiquesfrom ‘ThirdWorld’ feminists andw omen of color werepublishe d(e.g.A nzaldu´a, 1987; Mohanty, 1991), feminist geographerstended to ignore the‘ whiteness’of much feminist theory. Given thatmost feminist historical geographyhas arisen subsequentto theaforemen tioned critiques,issuesof raceand gender have often beencentral to recent works inthesub discipline.Such works areoften partof thecorpus of researchon empire, butthey alsoform importantaspects of feminist critiquesof thegender-b lindness of‘race’ researchbeyond empire(Jackson, 1994; Anderson,1996; Berg& Kearns, 1996). Kay Anderson (1996) bringsa feminist perspective to are-examination of her earlier (Anderson, 1991) analysisof racialdiscourse in Vancouver,Canada.H eranalysis serves to unsettlethe often overly simplisticself– other dichotomy,illustrating, for example,how atcertain juncturesw orking-classwhite women andb ourgeois Chinese men wereallied againstw hite bourgeois men in Vancouver, while atthe sam etime,female Chinese workers weredisem poweredby theirChinese malebosses. While refusing todiscreditthe force of racism,Anderson’s work (1996, p.210) nevertheless ‘highlight[s]them utable conŽgurations ,cross-cuttingconstituenc ies andcontingent authoritiesout of which social relationsare made’ . Lawrence Berg& Robin Kearns(1996) have analysedthe history of acontroversythatarose during the 1980s asa resultof attemptsby M aori peopleto renamea numberof placesin Aotearoa/NewZealand. This work explicatesthe m utual constitution of various discoursesof race, genderand place in thepolitics of naming. Moreover, itillustratesthew aypeopleand places are gendered differently underdifferent historical conditions. Allthese works attempt—by draw ing on understandings of the mutuallyconstitutiv echaracterof categoriessuch as‘ race’, gender,sexuality and class—both to unsettlethe self– other dichotomyof much ‘race’research ,butalso to deconstruct the‘ whiteness’of historical geographygenerally. Following PeterJackson’ s (1991) path-breaking callfor thestudy of masculinities in geography,feminist (orfem inist-inspired)historical geographershave exhibited growing interestin thetopic (Mort, 1995; Phillips, 1995, 1997; Berg& Kearns,1996; Berg,1998, 1999). Whereasm asculinity wasoften conated w ith ‘male’in thepast, more recent works have tendedto focus on theconstruct ion of multipleand contradict ory masculinitiesin speciŽc places. RichardPhillips (1995, 1997) chartsthe produ ction of masculinist geographies andtheir relation to empireand adventur e.His work servesto highlight the importantrole that adventur enarrativesplayedin them appingof hegemonic masculin- ities in placesas diverse as Canada and A ustralia,and the imaginativ egeographies of

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 Robinson Crusoe andJules Verne’ s Voyage AroundtheW orld .Berg(1998, 1999) has attempted to retheorize therelationsh ipbetween Pakeha (settlers) and M aori duringthe bloody colonial landwars in 1860s NewZealand. This work, which illustratesthe imbricati on of hegemonic masculinitiesandclass in racializedgeograph ies, attemptsa strategic response to thebinary politics of ‘race’that tends to dominatem uch academicwriting in NewZealand. Drawing upon adiverserange of liberal,socialist, post-structuralistand post-colon ial approaches, Australian feminist geographershave contributedm uch to thediscipline (a few examplesof which includeGale, 1974; Fincher &Fahey, 1990; Gibson, 1992; Teather,1992; Johnson, 1993; Anderson, 1995, 1996; Jacobs, 1996). Asfaras we can tell,only afew feminist geographersin Australiaself-consc iously consider themselvesto be,sim ultaneously, feminist andhistorical geographers, althoughK ayA nderson (1995, 1996) andElizabeth Teather (1992) mightbe so categorized.Teather(1992) writesthe membersof theCountry Women’s Association of NewSouth Walesinto thehistorical geographies of Australia.In so doing, she addressesthe failure of other Australian 324 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

historical geographersto acknowledgewom en’s importantcontribution to thedevelop- mentof ruralcom munities. KayAnderson ’s(1995) examination of thehistory of representationalpractices at theA delaideZoo chartsthe relationsh ipsb etween colonial- ism andconstruct ions of nature,the gendered and racialised practices of marking boundaries betweenhum ans andnon-hum an nature,and processes of domestication. Herw ork provides an importantfeminist andem piricalanalysis of ageographically, historicallyandcultural lyspeciŽ c instantiation of theNature/ Culturedichotomy so importantto masculinistund erstandingsof theworld. Finally, to round outour discussion,thereare a numberof British writersw hodonot focus on issuesof empire,but instead examine historical geographies of theconstruct ion of genderedidentities within theUK (Ploszajska,1994; Mort, 1995; Rose, 1997; Maddrell,1998). GillianRose (1997) presentsan analysisof twogenresof photographs of white working-classwom en in thestreets of EastLondon in the1930s in orderto illustratehow aradicallydifferent andultim atelyunknow ablefem ininity mightem erge from feminist analysesof ‘documentary’photograp hy. TeresaPloszajsk a(1994) examines theexternal siting, internalspatial arrangem ents, andoperative ideologies of aboys’ reformatoryin Surreyand girls’ reform atoryin Bristolduring the m id-nineteenth-cen- tury.Such works illustratetheimportan trelationshipsbetween social relations, space, andthe (social) productio nof gendered,classedand racialized identities during the past.

ConcludingComments In this articlew ehave outlineda broadview of anglophonefeminist historical geogra- phies producedin thelast decade, touching onkey works coming outof placesas diverse asAustral ia, Canada,Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, theUK andthe USA .Our reviewsuggests that a sizeablebody of feminist scholarshipis rapidlygaining strength andprom inence in thesubdiscip line—at least in theliteratur esfrom those placesw e have examined. In orderto reducethe potential for our reviewof feminist historical geographyto be readas a historical narrativeof ‘progress’,wehave triedto emplacethose geographies within speciŽc intellectualm ilieus. Nontheless writingwom en into historical narratives andgeographi esseems to bean importantpartof an ongoing project across theboard (e.g.Blunt & Rose, 1994; Bell& McEwan,1996; Nast,1996; McEwan, 1996; Cockerton, 1996; Kay, 1997; Estrada,1998; Cope, 1998b; Schuurman, 1998; Domosh, 1998;

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 Garcia-Ramon et al.,1998; Robinson, 1998a; Morin &KayGuelke, 1998). The varied approaches to doing so maybe read as emplace dforms of knowledgeproductio nthat respond to particularsocio-spati alexigencies. In makingsuch readings,we have triedto point to waysin which particularapproac hes to feminist geography, in thestudy of women or gender,have speciŽc emplacedhistories. Accordingly,we wouldlike to suggestthat the different contexts within which feminist historical geographies areproduce d—the w iderdiscipline of geography, thetheoretical andm ethodologicaldebates in geography,thetraining offeminist historical geographers (such asthe schools of thoughtand material places w herefem inist historical geography istaught),and the pu blication offeminist historical geographies—are allim plicatedin the patternsw ediscuss. For instance, opportunities for publication of feminist andother radicalhistorical geographies have increased over thepast 10 yearsin both Britainand theUSA ,owing in partto changes in editorialleadersh ipin thetw oexplicitlyhistorical geographyvenues in those places( Journalof Historical Geography and Historical Geography respectively),as w ellas the growth in numbersof journalsopen to feminist geography Trends in Feminist Historical Geography 325

research(such as Gender,Place and C ulture , and Ecumene).In theseand other cases, feminist historical geographyresearchhas both contributedto andbeneŽ ted from thelarger-s cale revisionism apparentin anglophonic humangeograph y. Feminist historical geographies have contributedvaluabl einsights into themany connections among patriarchal,capitalist and nationalist agendasem beddedin British (andother European)colonial powerstructur esand ‘ post-colonial’resistance sto them (e.g.Blunt & Rose, 1994; Anderson, 1996; Nash, 1996; McEwan, 1998a; Robinson, 1998a, 1998b). Such studieslend insights to other areasof geographical study(cultura l geography,politicalgeograph y,etc.)in theircritiques over whatconstitutes geographical knowledgeitself, them anner in which itis produced,andits intended purpose s.Perhaps one of them ost signiŽcant contributions feminist historical geographershave madeto other areasof geographyin thelast 10 yearsis theirexplicit methodologicalconfron- tation with themasculin istrecord ofgeography.Feminist historical geographershave not only calledinto question theepistem ological foundations ofgeography’spartialhistorical record, buthave providedextensive, mostly qualitativemodelsfor readingthe absences in therecord, andfor addressing issues of datacollection andanalysis, andsubjectiv ity of historical actors. Evidence ofwhatmight be calleda ‘newhistorical geography’of theUSA andCanada is emerging, portions of which areinform edby feminist theories andmethods. North American historical geographyhas traditionallybeen m ore focused on weaving com- plexempirica lnarrativesaboutpast geograph ies thanhas beenthe case in its British counterpart.M ore recently, however, anewfocus on critical social theory has developedin North American historical geography,partlyas areaction to trendsin new Westernhistory, butalso due to theincreasing attentionto culturalpolitics and American imperialismin newcultural history andthe new historicism in literaryand American studies(e.g. Kaplan & Pease,1993). The critical historical geographies being producedatthe University of British Columbia,particul arlythose focused on British colonialism (Harris,1991, 1997; Harris& Galois, 1994), mightbe seen asarising within thecontext of stronglinks to theBritish post-colonialhistorical geographers(Gregor y, 1994). Indeed, witha fewexceptions, historical geographyin Britainhas alongertradition of critical Marxist, feminist andanti-racis ttheoreticalproductio nandre ection thanin North America (e.g.see History Workshop Journal ).Drawing on post-structuralistand post-colonialapproach es, adistinctly‘ British’school has emergedw ith afocus on the

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 discipline of geography, geographical knowledgesand colonialism /imperialism.Having madethe claim sfor recognition of NorthA merican andBritish schools, however, we shouldem phasize thatthe cultura landpostm odern turnsin geographyhave seen much convergence betweenthe two schools of feminist (andother) historical geographies. Otherw hite settlersocieties such asA ustralia,New Zealand and South Africa have seen thedevelopm entof feminist approachesto historical geographythat draw from their metropolitancounterpartsin theUK andUSA ,butthey arenot merederivativ esof thesem etropolitanapproaches (e.g.Robinson, 1998a; Berg& Kearns,1998). Scholars working outsidethe metropol es(or working in non-metropolitanŽeldsites) are often positioned much differentlyfrom eitherBritish or American academics. In this sense, then, they areable to ‘writeback’ to thecentre, andin doing so, decentreit. Ultimatelyit is allthe fem inist historical geographies takenin sum,however, thatare destabilizing andrewriting historical geography. Writing women in, anddocum enting thesocial constructionof genderedselves and sexual difference (s),arepolitical acts bound upw ith relationsof powerand oppressi on both within andoutside the academy . 326 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

Feminist historical geographies aresubvertin gtheerasure of women andm any Others effaced from geographies of thepast.

Acknowledgements Weare grateful to Lynn Staeheliand three anonym ous reviewersfor theirconstructi ve commentson an earlierdraft of this paper,and to CaralynK ellyfor helpw ith the Canadiansources. Karenwould like to extendthanks to theG eographyDepartm entat theUniversity of Waikato for Žnancial andother supportduring the writing of this article.The Žnalversion wasdrafted w hile Lawrence wasa visitor to theGeograp hy Departmentat the U niversity of Victoria, andhe is gratefulto thedepartm entfor its support.

NOTES

[1] Whilewe recognize asmallnumber of feministhistorical geography book lengthworks, most scholarship we discussis in the form of publishedjournals articles, primarilythose appearing inone of thefollowing journalsin the last 8– 10 years: Journalof HistoricalG eography ; HistoricalGeography ; Gender,Place andCulture ; Transactions of the InstituteofBritishGeograp hers ; Area; Annalsof the Association of AmericanGeograp hers ; The Australian Geographer; AustralianG eographicalStudies , The New ZealandGeographer ; Environmentan dPlanningD :Society and Space; and Antipode.Weundertook acomprehensive literature searchof these journals(through roughly October of 1998), andin attempts at being as inclusiveas possible, placeda callfor submission son both theGeogFem andCritical Geography Forum listserveson theInternet. (This resulted in very few responses, however, lessthan 10.) Wefocusedon these journalssimply out of an attempt to followpatterns of feminist historicalgeography submissionswithinAnglo historicalgeography. Omissions are sureto have occurred, though, andwe regret them. [2] WhileOverton (1994) perhapspredictabl yignores thein uence offeministthought in hisentry on historical geography inthe third edition of The Dictionaryof HumanG eography , AFeminist Glossary of HumanG eography (McDowell andSharp, 1999) also rendersthe relationship between thetwo invisible:there isno entryfor ‘historicalgeography’ in the volume. Whileentries forpolitical, economic andsocial geography likewise do not appear, other subdisciplinesdo, suchas (new)cultural geography, regional geography, andMarxist geography. Thus,we are not suggesting thatthe editors have ignored historicalgeography, butrather that theydo not see it, andperhaps rightly so, as acoherenthotbed of feministgeographical scholarship.

REFERENCES

ANDERSON, KAY J. (1991) Vancouver’s Chinatown:racialdiscours einCan ada,1 875–1 980 (Montreal, McGill-Queen’s UniversityPress).

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 ANDERSON, KAY J.(1995) Cultureand nature at theAdelaide Zoo: at thefrontiers of ‘human’geography, Transactionsof the Institute of BritishGeograp hers ,20, pp.275– 294. ANDERSON, KAY J.(1996) Engenderingrace research:unsettling the self– other dichotomy,in: N ANCY DUNCAN (Ed.) BodySpace (London, Routledge). ALLEN, JOHN (Ed.)(1997) North AmericanE xploration (3 vols)(Lincoln, NE, Universityof Nebraska Press). Antipode (1998) Special issue: Nature andCapital inthe West, Vol. 30 (2). ANZALDU´ A, GLORIA (1987) Borderlands/La Frontera:the new mestiza (SanFrancisco, CA, Spinsters). BARNES, TREVOR J. & GREGORY, DEREK (1997) Worldinggeography: Geography as situated knowledge, in: T. J. BARNES & D. GREGORY (Eds) ReadingH umanG eography:the poetics andpolitics of inquiry (London, Arnold). BELL, MORAG & MCEWAN, CHERYL (1996) The admission ofwomen fellowsto theRoyal GeographicalSociety 1892–1914: thecontrovers yandthe outcome, GeographicalJourna l ,162, pp.295– 312. BERG, LAWRENCE D.(1998) Reading (post)colonialhistory: masculini ty, ‘race’, andrebellious natives inthe Waikato, New Zealand, 1863, HistoricalGeography ,26, pp.101– 127. BERG, LAWRENCE D.(1999) A(white)man of histimes? Sir George Grey andthe narration of hegemonic masculinityinVictorian New Zealand, in: R.L AW, H. CAMPBELL & J. DOLAN (Eds) Masculinities inN ew Zealand (PalmerstonNorth,Dunmore Press). BERG, LAWRENCE D. & KEARNS, ROBIN A.(1996) Naming as norming: ‘race’, gender andthe identity politics of naming placesin Aotearoa, Environmentan dPlanningD :Society andSpace ,14, pp.99– 122. Trends in Feminist Historical Geography 327

BERG, LAWRENCE D. & KEARNS, ROBIN A.(1998) America unlimited, EnvironmentandPlan ningD :Society andSpace , 16, pp.128– 132. BLAKE, SUSAN (1990) Awoman’s trek: what differencedoes gender make? Women’sStudies InternationalForum , 13, pp.347– 355. BLUNT, ALISON (1994) Travel,G enderan dImperialism:M aryK ingsley andWest Africa (NewYork, GuilfordPress). BLUNT, ALISON & ROSE, GILLIAN (Eds)(1994) WritingW omenan dSpace: colonialandpostcolo nial geographies (London, GuilfordPress). BONDI, LIZ & DOMOSH, MONA (1998) On thecontours of pubicspace: atale of three women, Antipode, 30, pp. 270–289. BOYER, KATE (1996) What’s agirllike you doing ina place like this?A geography of sexual violence inearly twentieth-centuryVancouver, UrbanG eography ,17, pp.286– 293. BOYER, KATE (1998) Placeand the politics of virtue: clericalwork, corporate anxiety, andchanging meanings of publicwomanhood inearly twentieth-cen turyMontreal, Gender,Place andCultu re ,5, pp.261– 276. COCKERTON, CAMILLA M.(1996) Less abarrier, more aline: themigration of Bechuanalandwomen to South Africa, 1850–1930, Journalof HistoricalGeography ,22, pp.291– 307. COPE, MEGHAN (1998a) She hathdone whatshe could: community ,citizenship,andplace among women in late nineteenth-centuryColorado, HistoricalGeography ,26, pp.45– 64. COPE, MEGHAN (1998b) Home–work links,labor markets, andthe constructi on of place inLawrence, Massachusetts,1920– 1939, ProfessionalGeograp her ,50, pp.126– 140. COSGROVE, DENIS & DANIELS, STEVEN (Eds)(1988) The Iconographyof Landscape (Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress). CRADDOCK, SUSAN (1998) Tuberculosis, tenements andthe epistemology of neglect: San Franciscoin the nineteenth-century, Ecumene,5, pp.53– 80. CRONON, WILLIAM (1991) Nature’s Metropolis:Chicago andthe greatW est (NewYork, W.W.Norton& Co.) DEUTSCH, SARAH (1987) NoSeparate Refuge:cu lture,class, an dgenderon anAnglo-H ispanicfrontier in the American Southwest, 1880–1940 (NewYork, Oxford UniversityPress). DEUTSCH, SARAH (1994) Recovering thecity: women, space, andpower inBoston, 1870–1910, Gender and History,6, pp.202– 223. DEUTSCH, SARAH (1998) Commentary:women, difference, andthe public terrain, HistoricalGeography , 26, pp. 83–91. DOMOSH, MONA (1991) Toward afeministhistoriograp hyof geography, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers ,16, pp.95– 104. DOMOSH, M ONA (1996) InventedCities: the creationof landscapein n ineteenth-centuryNew Yorkand B oston (New Haven, CT,Yale UniversityPress). DOMOSH, MONA (1997) With‘ stoutboots anda stoutheart’ : historicalmethodology andfeminist geography, in: JOHN PAUL JONES, III, HEIDI L. NAST & SUE M. ROBERTS (Eds) ThresholdsinFem inist Geography: difference, methodology, representation (Lanham, MD,Rowman &LittleŽeld). DOMOSH, M ONA (1998) Those ‘gorgeous incongruities’: polite politicsand public space on thestreets of nineteenth-centuryNew York City, Annalsof the Association of AmericanG eographers ,88, pp.209– 226. DRIVER, FELIX (1992) Geography’s empire: histories of geographical knowledge, Environmentan dPlanningD : Society andSpace ,10, pp.23– 40. DRIVER, FELIX (1996) Geographical education andcitizenship :introduction, Journalof HistoricalGeography , 22, Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 pp.371– 372. Ecumene (1998) Vol. 5(1). ESTRADA, SILVIA LOPEZ (1998) Women, urbanlife, andcity images inTijuana, Mexico, HistoricalG eography , 26, pp. 5–25. FINCHER, RUTH & FAHEY, STEPHANIE (1990) Introducingfeministperspectiv es inAustralian Geography, AustralianGeograp hicalStu dies ,28, pp.3– 4. GALOIS, ROBERT (1993–94) The historyof theupper Skeena region, 1850–1927, Native Studies Review , 9, pp. 113–183. GARCIA-RAMON, MARIA-DOLORS, ALBET-MAS, ABEL, NOGUE-FONT, J. & RIUDOR-GORGAS, LLUIS (1998) Voices fromthe margins: gendered images of ‘otherness’in colonial Morocco, Gender,Place andCulture , 5, pp. 229–240. GALE, FAY (1974) Women’sRole inAborigin alSociety (Canberra,AustralianInstitute of Aboriginal Studies). GEORGI-FINDLAY, BRIGETTE (1996) The Frontiersof Women’sWriting:w omen’snarratives andthe rhetoricof westward expansion (Tucson,AZ, Universityof Arizona Press). GIBSON, KATHIE (1992) Hewers ofcake anddrawers of tea: women, industrialrestructur ing, andclass processes on thecoalŽ elds of CentralQueensland , RethinkingMarxism ,5, pp.29– 56. GOULD, PETER (1994) Guest essay/essai surinvitation: sharinga tradition—geographies fromthe enlighten- ment, CanadianGeographer ,38, pp.194– 200. 328 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

GREGORY, DEREK (1994) GeographicalImagin ations (Oxford, Blackwell). GREGORY, DEREK (1995) Between thebook andthe lamp: imaginative geographies of Egypt, 1849–50, Transactionsof the Institute of BritishGeograp hers ,20, pp.29– 57. GREGSON, NICKY & ROSE, GILLIAN (1997) Contested andnegotiated histories of feministgeography, in: Women andGeography StudyGroup, Feminist Geographies: explorationsindiversit yanddifference (Harlow, Longman). GULLEY, HUGH E.(1993) Women andthe lost cause: preservinga Confederateidentity inthe American Deep South, Journalof HistoricalGeography ,19, pp.125– 141. HARRIS, R. COLE (1991) Power, modernity andhistorical geography, Annalsof the Association of American Geographers ,81, pp.671– 683. HARRIS, R. COLE (1997) The Resettlementof BritishColum bia:essays on colonialismand geograph icalchan ge (Vancouver, Universityof BritishColumbia Press). HARRIS, R. COLE & GALOIS, ROBERT (1994) Recalibratingsociety: thepopulation geography of British Columbia in1881, CanadianGeographer ,38, pp.37– 53. HistoricalGeography (1998) Special issue: Gender andthe City, Vol. 26. JACKSON, PETER (Ed.)(1987) Raceand R acism (London, UnwinHyman). JACKSON, PETER (1989) Mapsof Meaning (London, UnwinHyman). JACKSON, PETER (1991) The culturalpolitics of masculinity: towards asocial geography, Transactionsof the Institute of BritishGeograp hers ,16, pp.199– 213. JACKSON, PETER (1994) Blackmale: Advertisingandthe cultural politics of masculinity, Gender,Place andCultur e , 1, pp.49– 59. JACOBS, JANE M. (1996) Edgeof Empire:postcolo nialismand the city (London, Routledge). JOHNSON, LOUISE C.(1993) Text-ured brick:speculation son thecultural production of domestic space, AustralianGeograp hicalStu dies ,31, pp.201– 213. JOHNSON, NUALA C.(1994) Sculptingheroic histories: celebrating thecentenary of the1798 rebellionin Ireland, Transactionsof the Institute of BritishG eographers ,19, pp.78– 93. JOHNSON, NUALA C.(1995) Castin stone: monuments,geography andnationalism, Environmentand Plan ningD: Society andSpace ,13, pp.51– 65. JONES, JOHN PAUL III, NAST HEIDI & ROBERTS, SUE (Eds)(1997) ThresholdsinFem inist Geography:difference, methodology, representation (Lanham, MD,Rowman &LittleŽeld). KAPLAN, ANN & PEASE, DONALD (Eds)(1993) Culturesof UnitedStates Imperialism (Durham, NC,Duke University Press). KAY, JEANNE (1989) Westernwomen’ s history, Journalof HistoricalG eography ,15, pp.302– 305. KAY, JEANNE (1990) The futureof historicalgeography inthe United States, Annalsof the Association of American Geographers ,80, pp.618– 621. KAY, JEANNE (1991) Landscapesof women andmen: rethinkingthe regional historicalgeography of theUnited States andCanada, Journalof HistoricalGeography ,17, pp.435– 452. KAY, JEANNE (1997) Sweet surrenderbut what’ s thegender: natureand the body inthe writings of nineteenth-centuryMormon women, in: J OHN PAUL JONES, III, HEIDI L. NAST & SUE M. ROBERTS (Eds) Thresholdsin Feminis tGeography:difference, methodology, representation (Lanham, MD,Rowman &LittleŽeld). KEARNS, GERRY (1997) The imperial subject: geography andtravel in the work of Mary Kingsleyand Halford

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 Mackinder, Transactionsof the Institute of BritishGeograp hers ,22, pp.450– 472. KEARNS, GERRY (1998) The virtuouscircle of factsand values in the new westernhistory, Annalsof the Association of AmericanGeographers ,88, pp.377– 409. KINNAIRD, VIVIAN & HALL, DEREK (Eds)(1994) Tourism:agenderanalysi s (Toronto, Wiley). KOBAYASHI, AUDREY & PEAKE, LINDA (1994) Unnaturaldiscourse :‘race’and gender ingeography, Gender,Place and Culture,1, pp.225– 243. KOLODNY, ANNETTE (1975) The Lay of the Land:metapho rasexperien cean dhistory inAm ericanlife andletters (Chapel Hill,NC, Universityof NorthCarolina Press). KOLODNY, ANNETTE (1984) The Landbefore Her:fan tasy andexperienceof the Americanfrontier,16 30–1860 (Chapel Hill,NC, Universityof NorthCarolina Press). LEE, DAVID R.(1990) The statusof women ingeography: thingschange, thingsremain thesame, Professional Geographer,42, pp.202– 211. LIMERICK, PATRICIA (1987) The Legacy ofConquest: the unbrokenpast of the AmericanW est (NewYork, W.W.Norton). M ADDRELL, AVRIL M.C.(1998) Discourses of race andgender andthe comparative method ingeography texts 1830–1918, Environmentan dPlanningD:Society andSpace ,16, pp.81– 103. M ASSEY, DOREEN (1994) Space, Place andGender (Minneapolis,MN, Universityof Minnesota Press). M ATTINGLY, DOREEN J.(1998a) Gender andthe city in historical perspectiv e: an introduction, Historical Geography,26, pp.1– 4. Trends in Feminist Historical Geography 329

M ATTINGLY DOREEN J.(1998b) Gender andthe politics of scale: theChristian right, sex education, and ‘community’inVista, California, 1990–1994, HistoricalGeography ,26, pp.65– 82. M CDOWELL, LINDA (1993) Space, place andgender relations. PartII: Identity, difference, feministgeometries andgeographies, Progressin H umanG eography ,17, pp.305– 318. M CDOWELL, LINDA & MASSEY, DOREEN (1984) Awoman’s place?in: D OREEN M ASSEY & J. ALLEN (Eds) Geography Matters! (Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress). M CDOWELL, LINDA & SHARP, JOANNE (Eds)(1999) AFeminist Glossary of HumanG eography (London, Arnold). M CEWAN, CHERYL (1994) EncounterswithWest African women: textual representationsof differenceby white women abroad, in: A LISON BLUNT & GILLIAN ROSE (Eds) WritingWomenan dSpace: colonialandpostcolonial geographies (NewYork, GuilfordPress). M CEWAN, CHERYL (1996) Paradise or pandamonium?West African landscape sinthe travel accounts of Victorian women, Journalof HistoricalGeography ,22, pp.68– 83. M CEWAN, CHERYL (1998a) Cuttingpower lineswithin the palace? Counteringpaternity and Eurocentr ism in the‘ geographical tradition’, Transactionsof the Institute of BritishG eographers ,23, pp.371– 384. M CEWAN, CHERYL (1998b) Gender, scienceand physical geography innineteenth-c enturyBritain, Area, 30, pp. 215–223. M CGURTY, EILEEN M.(1998) Trashywomen: gender andthe politics of garbage inChicago, 1890–1917, HistoricalG eography ,26, pp.27– 43. M ILLS, SARA (1991) Discoursesof Difference:anan alysis of women’stravelwriting an dcolonialism (London, Routledge). M ILLS, SARA (1996) Gender andcolonial space, Gender,Place andCulture ,3, pp.125– 147. M ITCHELL, DON (1996) The Lie ofthe Land:m igrantworkersand the Californialandscape (Minneapolis, MN,University of Minnesota Press). M ITCHELL, DON (1998) Writingthe western: new westernhistory’ s encounterwith landscape , Ecumene, 5, pp. 7–29. M OHANTY, CHANDRA T.(1991) Cartographies of struggle: thirdworld women andthe politics of feminism, in: CHANDRA T. MOHANTY, A. RUSSO & L. TORRES (Eds) ThirdW orldW omenand the Politics of Feminism (Bloomington,IN, Universityof Indiana Press). M ONK, JANICE (1992a) Gender inthe landscape :expressionsof power andmeaning, in: K.A NDERSON & F. GALE (Eds) InventingPlaces: studies incu lturalgeograph y (Melbourne, Longman). M ONK, JANICE (1992b) The occupational segregation of women geographers inthe United States, 1900–1950, Abstracts,twenty-seventhInternational Geographic al congress, pp.429– 30. M ONK, JANICE (1994) Placematters: comparativeinternational perspectives on feministgeography, Professional Geographer,46, pp.277– 288. M ONK, JANICE & HANSON, SUSAN (1982) On not excludinghalf of thehuman in human geography, Professional Geographer,34, pp.11– 23. M ORIN, KAREN M.(1998) Britishwomen travellersand constructio nsof racial differenceacross the nineteenth- centuryAmerican West, Transactionsof the Institute of BritishG eographers ,23, pp.311– 330. M ORIN, KAREN M.(1999) Surveying Britain’s informalempire: Rose Kingsley’s 1872 reconnaissance forthe Mexican National Railway, HistoricalGeography ,27, pp.5– 26. M ORIN, KAREN M. & KAY GUELKE, JEANNE (1998) Strategies of representation,relationship ,andresistance: Britishwomen travelersand Mormon pluralwives, ca. 1870–1890, Annalsof the Association of American

Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 Geographers ,88, pp.436– 462. M ORRIS, MEAGHAN (1992) Afterthoughtson Australianism, CulturalStu dies ,6, pp.468– 475. M ORT, FRANK (1995) Archaeologies of citylife: commercialculture,masculin ity, andspatial relations in1980s London, EnvironmentandPlan ningD :Society andSpace ,13, pp.573– 590. NASH, CATHERINE (1996) Men again: Irishmasculinit y,nature, andnationhood inthe early twentieth-cen tury, Ecumene,3, pp.427– 453. NAST, HEIDI J.(1993) Engendering‘space’: state formation andthe restructur ing of northernNigeria’ s Kano Palace, 1807–1903, HistoricalGeography ,23, pp.62– 75. NAST, HEIDI J.(1996) Islam, gender, andslavery in W est Africa circa 1500: aspatial archaeology of theKano Palace, northernNigeria, Annalsof the Association of AmericanG eographers ,86, pp.44– 77. NORWOOD, VERA & MONK, JANICE (Eds)(1987) The Desert isN oLady: southwesternlan dscapesin w omen’swritingan d art (NewHaven, CT,Yale UniversityPress). OVERTON, MARK (1994) Historical geography, in: R.J. J OHNSTON, DEREK GREGORY & D.M. SMITH (Eds) The Dictionaryof HumanG eography (Cambridge, Blackwell). PICKLES, JOHN (1985) Phenomenology,Science andGeography:spatialityandthe humanscience s (Cambridge, Cambridge UniversityPress). PICKLES, KATIE (1998) Forgotten colonizers:theimperial order daughtersof theempire (IODE)andthe Canadian North, CanadianG eographer ,42, pp.193– 204. 330 K.M.Morin &L.D.Berg

PHILLIPS, RICHARD (1995) Spaces of adventure andcultural politics of masculinity: R.M.B ALLANTYNE and The YoungFurT raders , Environmentand Plan ningD :Society andSpace ,13, pp.591– 608. PHILLIPS, RICHARD (1997) MappingMenand E mpire:a geographyof adventure (London, Routledge). PHILO, CHRIS (1994) History, geography andthe ‘ stillgreater mystery’of historicalgeography, in: D EREK GREGORY, R. MARTIN & G. SMITH (Eds) HumanG eography:society, spacean dsocial science (Minneapolis,M N, Universityof Minnesota Press). PLOSZAJSKA, TERESA (1994) Moral landscapesandmanipulate dspaces: gender, classand space inVictorian reformatory schools, Journalof HistoricalGeography ,20, pp.413– 442. PRATT, MARY LOUISE (1992) ImperialEyes: travelw ritingandtran sculturation (London, Routledge). PULSIPHER, LYDIA M.(1997) For whom shallwe write? Whatvoice shallwe use?Which story shall we tell?in: JOHN PAUL JONES, III, HEIDI L. NAST & SUE M. ROBERTS (Eds) ThresholdsinFemini stG eography:difference, methodology, representation (Lanham, MD,Rowman &LittleŽeld). RINGER, GREGORY (Ed.)(1998) Destinations: culturallan dscapesof tourism (NewYork, Routledge). ROBINSON, JENNIFER (1998a) Power as friendship:spatiality, femininityand ‘ noisy’surveillan ce, in: C HRIS PHILO, P. ROUTLEDGE & J. SHARP (Eds) Entanglementsof Power (London, Routledge). ROBINSON, JENNIFER (1998b) Octavia Hillwomen housingmanagers inSouth Africa: femininityand urban government, Journalof HistoricalGeography ,24, pp.459– 485. ROSE, GILLIAN (1993) Feminisman dGeography: the limitsof geographicalknow ledge (Minneapolis, MN,Universityof Minnesota Press). ROSE, GILLIAN (1995) Tradition andpaternity: same difference? Transactionsof the Institute of BritishG eographers , 20, pp.414– 416. ROSE, GILLIAN (1997) Engenderingtheslum: photography inEast London inthe 1930s, Gender,Place andCultur e , 4, pp.277– 300. ROSE, GILLIAN & OGBORN, MILES (1998) Feminism andhistorical geography, JournalofHistoricalGeography , 14, pp.405– 409. RUIZ, VICKY (1998) FromOu tof the Shadows:Mexicanwom enin tw entieth-centuryAmerica (NewYork, Oxford UniversityPress). SACK, ROBERT D. (1980) Conceptionsof Space inSocial Thought (London, Macmillan). SAID, EDWARD (1978) Orientalism (London, Peregrine). SCHAEFFER, KAY (1994) Colonizing gender incolonial Australia: theEliza Fraser story, in: A LISON BLUNT & GILLIAN ROSE (Eds) WritingWomenan dSpace: colonial andpostcolo nial geographies (NewYork, GuilfordPress). SCHENKER, HEATHER M.(1996) Women’s andchildren’ s quartersin Golden Gate Park,San Francisco, Gender, Place andCultur e ,3, pp.293– 308. SCHUURMAN, NADINE (1998) Contesting patriarchy:Nlha7pamuxandStl’ atl’ imx women andcolonialism in nineteenth-centuryBritish Columbia, Gender,Place andCulture ,5, pp.141– 158. SCOTT, JOAN W. (1988) Genderan dthe Politics of History (NewYork, Columbia UniversityPress). SCOTT, JOAN W.(1989) History inCrisis? The others’side of thestory, AmericanH istory Review ,94, pp.680– 681. SCOTT, JOAN W.(1992) Experience, in: J.B UTLER & J.W. SCOTT (Eds) FeministsTheoriz ethe Political (New York, Routledge). SIMONSEN, KIRSTEN (1996) Whatkind of space inwhat kind of social theory? Progressin H umanG eography , 20, pp.494– 512. SMITH, CYNDI (1989) Offthe Beaten Track:w omenadven turersan dmountaineers inwestern Can ada (Jasper, Alberta, Downloaded by [Bucknell University] at 06:37 23 June 2015 Coyote Books). SMITH, SUSAN J. (1989) The Politics of ‘Race’and R esidence inB ritain (Cambridge, PolityPress). SOJA, EDWARD (1989) PostmodernG eographies (London, Verso). SPIVAK, GAYATRI C.(1988) Canthe subaltern speak? in: C.N ELSON & L. GROSSBERG (Eds) Marxismand the Interpretation of Culture (Urbana,IL, Universityof IllinoisPress). SQUIRE, SHEILAGH J.(1993) Valuing countryside: reections on Beatrix Potter tourism, Area,25, pp.5– 10. SQUIRE, SHEILAGH J.(1995) Inthe steps of ‘genteel ladies’: women touristsin the Canadian Rockies, 1885–1939, CanadianG eographer ,39, pp.2– 15. STODDART, DAVID R.(1991) Do weneed afeministhistoriograp hyof geography—and if we do, whatshould it be? Transactionsof the Institute of BritishGeograp hers ,16, pp.484– 487. TEATHER, ELIZABETH K.(1992) The Žrstrural women’ s networkin New South Wales: seventyyears of the CountryWomen’ s Association, AustralianG eographer ,23, pp.164– 176. TOWNER, JOHN (1988) Approaches to tourism history, Annalsof TourismR esearch ,15, pp.47– 62. WOMEN AND GEOGRAPH Y STUDY GROUP (1997) Feminist Geographies: explorationsindiversit yanddifference (Harbor, Longman). WALBY, SOPHIE (1986) Patriarchy atW ork (Cambridge, PolityPress Basil Blackwel l). WYNN, GRAEME (Ed.)(1990) People, Places, Patterns,Processe s:geograph icalperspect ives on the Canadianpast (Toronto, CoppClark Pitman).