To read or not to read? The politics of overlooking gender in the geographical canon

Abstract

Wherever there is an established 'canon' within an established scholarly arena, this is near universally dominated by texts written by men. Whilst historical contextual reasons may account for the gendering of such knowledge production in relation to publications dating from the nineteenth and preceding centuries, one has to ask why this has persisted in an era of equal access to education and academia in the twentieth century. Why is women's work, highly influential in its day, overlooked in subsequent histories of the discipline and therefore marginalised in discussions of key works? These questions are particularly pertinent to any notion of a geographical canon, given the subject's relatively late arrival as a degree award in the UK from 1917 onwards. This paper draws on an analysis of the significance of lineage, reviewing, reputation and genre in the contextualised production and reception of selected work to explore the merits and demerits of a geographical canonand the implications for gendered geographical knowledge. It goes on to suggest i) a more inclusive and dialogic relational approach to understanding past and present geographical work based on Kilcup's notion of the 'soft canon'; ii) a broadening of the cast and range of outputs considered 'influential'; and iii) encourages greater critical reflection on contemporary practices of canonization within sub-disciplines.

Unearthing feminist territories and terrains

“…This is, of course, not a new critique. There is an array of (action-oriented) scholarship on the politics of citation and inclusion across the sub-disciplines of geography (Domosh 2005, Al-Hindi 2000, Jazeel & McFarlane 2009, Mott & Roberts 2014, Maddrell 2015, Mott & Cockayne 2017, Halvorsen 2018a, 2018b, Rose-Redwood et al 2018, Pugh 2018, and in wider academia (Ahmed 2017). Yet in the complicated and uneven territories and terrains of conference rooms, classrooms, universities, and bibliographies, there remains embedded a (geo)politics of (in)visibility and (non-)occupation that warrants ongoing attention.…”

How the other half lives: A reflection on Tivers (1978) from a physical geographer's point of view

“…It is vital to recognise women in the past, not to reward as “heroic” as pointed out by Bracken and Mawdsley (2004), but to make sure they are a key part of any study of the history of physical geography as a whole (Burek & Higgs, 2020; Hart, 2007). In a world of surnames, it is important that academics highlight women researchers in their field, both current and from the past (Maddrell, 2015; Mott & Cockayne, 2017). The visibility of women as a key part of geography sends an important message to the whole community (Figure 1).…”

It's time to recognize how men's careers benefit from sexually harassing women in academia

“…We must make destructive power visible and refuse to celebrate abusive individuals. For example, we can insist on discussing their behavior when we teach their work, and we can actively work to change the canon (Keighren et al 2012, Maddrell 2015. We can refuse to honor them with nominations and invitations, and we can institute new review requirements for disciplinary honors and other forms of institutional recognition.…”