interaction, negotiation and constitution of
specific bodies. Although not explicitly theorizing
the body, early work in the ‘new’ cultural geo-
graphy (see, for example, Jackson, 1989; Jackson
and Penrose, 1992) collectively spelled out what
is infeasible about understanding the body
through unproblematized categories of power,
both analytically and practically. Of central con-
cern then is the intersection of oppressions
arising out of regulatory mechanisms that control
the body to varying degrees and the spatial mani-
festations of the particular ways these relations
of power play out. Through conceiving analytical
categories and empirical constructs as socially
constructed, theorists have been able to demon-
strate how multiple sets of power relations mutu-
ally constitute identities in such a way as to
ground difference not in the manifestations of
bodily being, as for example through sight, DNA
or biology, but in the processes through which
difference comes to be recognized as difference,
as for example through the way reproductive
labour is shaped by both gender and race (see,
for example, Peake, 1995). By drawing out mate-
rial processes related to production, theorists
have been able to demonstrate how spaces,
saturated with power organized around both
oppressions and imaginations, are produced and
reproduced in different contexts and time periods
(see Gleeson, 1999 on disability and the produc-
tion of urban space). Another aspect of the
notion of socially constructed categories is the
regulation of bodies through the same sets of
relations that signal, denote and deploy oppres-
sion. Bodies act as the link between everyday
activities and the larger organization of social
power, and are deeply embedded within the ways
people negotiate power through social relations.
Regulatory mechanisms control the range of
bodily activities as well as the bodies them-
selves, thus producing bodies that are constantly
under surveillance either by the self or by
society, either concretely or discursively, as for
example in cases of anorexia nervosa (Bray and
Colebrook, 1998) and in ‘white privilege’ in the
university classroom (Sanders, 1998).Embodying subjectivities and spatialitiesWith the upsurge of interest in the body came an
associated rise in studies of identity and subjec-
tivity. Understanding the body became closely
related to understanding the subject, and vice
versa. One of the central themes of inquiry into
subjectivity influenced heavily by feminist and
postructuralist thinking is the notion of ‘becom-
ing’, in lieu of a ‘pre-existing person which isthen channelled into diverse forms’ (Price and
Shildrick, 1999: 79). In diversity, then, while
always in a state of becoming, the body never
reaches a point of completeness or stasis. Ongoing
external coercion, self-surveillance and agency
are three primary modes of sustaining a state
of becoming (Bordo, 1993). Problems crop up
however when differentiating subjectivities for a
specific politics, as for example feminist, queer
or disability politics. Recognition of a margina-
lized individual or collective identity as a basis
for a politics often involves glossing over diver-
sity for the sake of a seemingly unified political
stance, as for example in diminishing the impor-
tance of race politics in feminist movements or
of sexual politics in workers’ movements. This
unintentional exclusionary politics happens dis-
cursively as well. For example, some young
women may find it easier to claim their sexuality
and be part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgendered movement than to claim to be
feminist in the more politically general women’s
movement. Empirical categories used to distin-
guish ability, age, class, ethnicity, gender,
nationality, race, sex and sexuality already have
within them a negation of dominant categories
and an exclusion of other categories, unless
hyphenated (see Visweswaran, 1994: 119, for a
discussion of hyphenated identities). Thus when
claiming, for example, femininity as resistance
or transgression, the binary upon which feminin-
ity is inevitably linked ends up being supported,
reinforcing then the hegemony of masculinity.
Geographical explorations into the body, sub-
jectivity and, subsequently, embodied subjectivity
have tried to embrace differentiation while keep-
ing at bay claims that recognition of difference
enhances pre-existing dominance (see, for
example, chapters in Pile and Thrift, 1995). One
strategy has been to elaborate the historical and
geographical specificity of particular bodies. For
example, Julia Cream (1995) meticulously
distinguishes bodies as they relate to the intro-
duction of the ‘pill’. While engaged in the same
act – that of taking the ‘pill’ – different women
are at the same time contracepted for birth con-
trol, liberated for sexual freedom and exploited
for the advancement of science. Spatializing
embodied subjectivities like those that Cream
identified can take many forms. Annabel Cooper
et al., (2000) investigated the links between
toilet provision for women in New Zealand
between 1860 and 1940. They concluded that the
more women became part of public life, the more
private toiletsbecame. Although not specific to
their argument, the shift in the spatial regulation
of women’s bodies would necessarily have an
impact on the constitution of these women’sEMBODYING SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY 633029-ch02.qxd 03-10-02 11:39 AM Page 63