This essay examines the contention that philosophy, not politics or positionality, drives geographers’ changing approaches to social difference. Through analyzing three social differences, namely gender, sexualities and children, this essay contends that philosophy, politics and positionality are all intrinsically intertwined and have all driven geographers’ changing approaches. However, this essay goes on to show that there exists the need to consider other drivers like the interaction between geography and other bodies of literature, in order to gain a fuller understanding of how geography has been shaped by particular drivers in the study of social differences.
Gender
In the area of gender, which is defined as the “different roles, qualities and responsibilities attributed to men and women in society” (Rogers et al., 2013), this essay argues that positionality and politics, more than philosophy, have driven geographers’ changing approaches, as women themselves have been responsible for bringing themselves to the forefront of the discipline through their writings, which has been facilitated by changing politics, like the women’s liberation movement.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Philosophy has also driven geographers’ changing approaches to gender.
Philosophically, gender has seen the change from positivism to feminism to a melding of feminism with other philosophies. Positivism has been influential in urban studies, which aimed to construct an epistemology based on empirical evidence to quantify geographical phenomena. As evidenced by the rise theory of urban ecology in the 1920s, whereby cities were conceptualised as environments like that of nature, governed by the same laws of Darwin (Brown 2002). Geography thus became interested in mapping the spatiality of the city with little regard to social differences like that of gender and race (Brown 2002). However, such an approach fell out of favour for being overly simplistic, with researchers becoming more aware of cultural and social processes. Then came the advent of feminism which women themselves challenged long-standing androcentrism, calling for academic attention to be directed at women (Huang et al. 2017). Feminism continues to shape current approaches to gender albeit to a smaller extent, with significant academic interest being directed in the manner in which it melds and contests other philosophies like post-structuralism and Marxism (MacKinnon 1982; Alcoff 1998). Therefore, philosophy has driven geographers’ changing approaches to gender, shaping the way gender was being studied at different times.
Positionality and politics have driven geographers’ changing approaches to gender. Looking at the development of urban theory, women’s work was not acknowledged by prominent male sociologists like Robert Park, as it was seen as politicised and illogical (Sibley 1995). Thus, the history of urban theory is seen to be attributed to the work of male sociologists with little regard to that of women, alluding to the masculinised view of knowledge which dominated then due to the overwhelmingly male academic field. In this case, we see the prominent role of positionality, with women writing themselves into the discipline, but their voices disregarded due to the politics of the time. In McDowell and Massey’s (1984) work, they examine how changing economic and employment structures in County Durham and Lancashire have affected the spatial distribution of work in relation to gender. In 19th century, County Durham had a distinct gendered division of labour, with coal mining being a male-only job, while women were responsible for domestic labour. In the 20th century, decimation of the mining industry and the rise of branch plants, which involved both male and female workers, resulted in a less gendered division of labour. Thus, the role of politics in this piece is evident, with economics changing politics of the time thus reshaping gender relations, causing women to be conceived as being of interest to the female authors of this piece. Therefore, the interdependent relationship between positionality and politics is evident, positionality caused women to be interested in writing about themselves, however their work was only considered with changing politics, on the other hand, politics resulted in women being conceived as worthy objects of study, with women academics writing about them. Hence, positionality and politics are equally important as both are intrinsically interdependent on each other in driving geographers’ changing approach to gender.
Sexualities
In the domain of sexualities, which is defined as “a person’s sexual orientation or preference” (Rogers et al. 2013), I argue that positionality, more so than politics or philosophy has driven geographers’ changing approaches to sexuality.
Politics has driven geographers’ changing approaches to sexualities by drawing initial attention to the subject and through societal changes which made sexuality more acceptable to academia. Sexualities first interested geographers through the development of gay neighbourhoods which were seen to be influencing gentrification. Castells’ (1983) work spearheaded interest in this area, by mapping specific gay neighbourhoods and commercial districts, he argued that the geography of gay men and lesbians were inherently distinct and attributed this to their corresponding gender roles and behaviour. This drew academic interest to the spatial basis of gay identity, and the central role that gay men had in urban gentrification (Binnie and Valentine 1999). The abolishment of the public-private dichotomy in geography was also seen to facilitate the study of sexuality in geography. In the past, geographers only focused on the public such as urban spaces, while sexuality was characterised as an inherently private issue (Holloway 2019). However, with societal changes, like first and second wave feminism, notions pertaining to sexuality changed, with it being seen as an topic that could be studied. Therefore, politics has driven geographers’ changing approaches to sexualities by drawing initial interest to sexualities and by making it a topic that is acceptable to be studied in academia.
Geographers changing approaches to sexualities has been driven by various philosophies from positivism and subsequently feminism and post-structuralism. Sexualities first entered geographers’ radar through the creation of the concentric city model, which attempted to map the spatiality of cities, with the “zone of transition” seen as the place for vice and high levels of poverty (Clift and Carter 2000). This new concept directed research focused on vice in the city, such as that of prostitution which Reckless (1969) argued was intimately linked with the urban environment. However, the topic of sexualities then became ignored by geographers as evidenced by the adoption of the concentric city model into mainstream geography without mention of vice in the “zone of transition” (Holloway 2019). The rise of feminism resulted in feminists challenging sexual norms of rape and compulsory nature of intercourse, with sexuality seen to be constructed to serve men (Jeffreys 1997). Thus placing sexuality on geographers’ agenda, by highlighting the unequal power relations between men and women. Currently, studies in sexualities are not dominated by any particular philosophy, but rather researchers are mixing and matching various approaches in order to better comprehend sexuality (Holloway 2019). Therefore, philosophy has driven geographers’ changing approaches to sexuality by dictating the changing focuses they had with regards to sexualities.
Positionality has driven geographers’ changing approaches to sexuality as much of the initial and current literature has been overwhelmingly written by gay or lesbian geographers. In this domain, positionality plays two key roles, firstly by facilitating access to research populations. In Rooke’s (2009) study of a gay and lesbian community centre, she found that participants were more willing to share their life experiences when she presented herself as a white working-class lesbian researcher. Evidently in this case, the common shared identity of researcher and participant has facilitated access to the research population. Secondly, it allows researchers to gain a deeper understanding of sexualities. By being gay or lesbian, the researcher is able to tap into their sexuality as a source of knowledge, thus supplementing their research (Cupples 2002). Furthermore, by being situated in the social difference they are studying, the researcher themselves are being subjected to lesser scrutiny than researchers who do not belong to the community being studied (McDonald 2013). These two reasons have resulted in the dearth of research in this area being published by gay and lesbian geographers, whose writings have placed sexualities on the agenda. Therefore, positionality has driven geographers’ changing approaches to social difference as it has allowed queer geography to be produced by queer geographers, thus shaping interest in this domain.
In the domain of sexualities, this essay contends that positionality has been the main driver of geographers’ changing approaches to social difference. Without queer geographers writing about themselves, there would be a lack of reliable literature pertaining to sexualities, which is the foundation on which other geographers were able to study sexualities.
Children
In the domain of children, I argue that philosophy nor politics or positionality has driven geographers’ changing approaches, but rather it has been driven primarily by the cross-disciplinary interaction between geography and other bodies of literature, such as the New Social Studies of Childhood (NSSC). The NSSC refers to a body of literature with the shared conceptualization of the child as a ‘being’, whereby “the child is conceived of as a person, a status, a course of action, a set of needs, rights or differences – in sum, as a social actor…” (James et al. 1998:207).
Geographers’ changing approaches to children have been driven by philosophy, with arguably feminism in particular having a more pronounced impact. Feminist investigations have often focused on collaborative methods, where the uneven power relations between researcher and participant is dismantled (McDowell 1992). Such a consideration is particularly crucial in children’s’ geographies as informants are usually children, whereby the implicit power relation between the two may favour the adult researcher by “general cultural notions of power and control” (Christensen 2004: 168). This has manifested in children’s geographies with researchers commonly asking participants how they wish to be represented (Weller 2006), which has in turn given agency and a voice to the children researched. Therefore, geographers’ changing approaches to children have been driven by philosophy influencing the manner in which children’s geographies research is being conducted.
In terms of positionality, geographers’ approaches to children have not been driven by it directly, but rather indirectly. With children being unable to place themselves on the agenda through writing about themselves, we see that majority of the literature in this domain have been written mostly by women (Holloway 2019). This can be attributed to women being the primary caregivers for children, thus spending more time with them and developing a deeper understanding of them (Valentine 2004). By influencing changing approaches only indirectly, positionality has not been a significant driver in influencing geographers’ approaches to children.
Politics has driven geographers’ changing approaches to children as the changing status of children in society has resulted in them being conceived as a subject of interest for geographers. There has been a recent and intensifying significance being placed upon children’s rights as evidenced by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was ratified in 1998 by all except two countries in the world. This concerted effort to recognize children’s rights signifies a prominent political shift whereby children are now seen as deserving of the same rights and protection as that of adults (Matthews and Limb 1999). Academic interest soon followed as evidenced by the subsequent creation and publication of the international journal Children’s Geographies in 2003, which has served as crucial site for discussion on issues affecting children and young people (Skelton 2013). Therefore, politics has driven geographers’ changing approaches to children by resulting in them being viewed as a subject of interest for geographers.
However, the cross-disciplinary interaction between geography and other bodies of literature, like the NSSC remains the key driver behind geographers’ changing approaches to children. One key contribution from this interaction would be the establishment of the importance of place in the NSSC by geographers (Holloway and Valentine 2000). Robson (1996) through his study of West Africa which had what was perceived to be an anomalously high dependency ratio, questions the construction of childhood as a time of dependency by uncovering the active role children had in households. Such a finding fundamentally undermined the Western construction of childhood which fails to recognise the vital contribution children in the South made to household economic survival. Therefore, geographers’ changing approaches to children has been driven by cross-disciplinary interaction which has reconceptualised childhood for geographers.
With regards to children, geographers’ changing approaches have been mainly driven by the cross-disciplinary interaction of geography with other bodies of literature rather than that of philosophy, politics or positionality. As evidenced above, geographers are continuing to value-add to work in the NSSC, at the same time, the NSSC has reconceptualised childhood for geography, providing geographers with a new perspective on the issue, thus driving geographers’ changing approaches to children.
In conclusion, this essay contends that positionality and politics is important with regards to gender while positionality is important to sexuality in driving geographers’ changing approaches to social difference. However, as evidenced in the study of children, there is the need to consider beyond positionality, politics or philosophy as the only drivers of changing approaches, as factors like cross-disciplinary interaction with other bodies of literature may also drive geographers’ changing approaches.
Stuck on your essay?
