the entire discipline. It now has a considerable
institutional presence: the journal Gender,
Place and Culturehas been published since
1994 (a series of excellent reviews of sub-areas
within feminist geography appeared through-
out 2003 and 2004 to mark the journal’s
tenth anniversary); there are over 12 titles in
the Routledge International Studies of Women
and Place series; regular progress reports of
feminist geography appear in Progress in
Human GeographyandUrban Geography; and
there are a good number of textbooks targeted
to varying levels of undergraduate and (post)
graduate students (e.g. Domosh and Seager,
2001; Jones III, Nast and Roberts, 1997;
McDowell and Sharpe, 1997; Moss, 2002;
Sharpe, Browne and Thien, 2004; Pratt,
2004), along with several key reference texts,
includingA companion to feminist geography
(Nelson and Seager, 2005), aFeminist glossary
of human geography(McDowell and Sharpe,
1999) and The atlas of women (Seager,
2003a). Although there are distinguishable
strands, some common tendencies cut across
all feminist geographies:
(1) They are critical, not only of gender op-
pression and various manifestations of
heteronormativity insociety, but of the
myriad ways that these are reproduced in
geographical knowledge. There is now a
comprehensive critique of geographical
traditions; for example,political geog-
raphy (Staeheli, Kofman and Peake,
2004);historical geography(Domosh,
1991);humanistic geography(Rose,
1993); geographies ofmodernity and
postmodernity(Deutsche, 1991); and
more recent literatures ontransnation-
alism(Mitchell, 1997c) andglobaliza-
tion(Nagar, Lawson, McDowell and
Hanson, 2002). Rose (1993) extends her
critique to the discipline as a whole, cata-
loguing its various and complementary
forms of masculinism. What the
relationship between feminist geography
and the discipline now is and should be
remains a matter of debate: some note the
lack of impact that more than two dec-
ades of vibrant feminist scholarship have
had on the discipline, while others prob-
lematize the increased exchange of ideas
between feminist and other strands of
critical human geography(for an ex-
cellent discussion of the potential
for exchange between feminist geograph-
ers andnon-representational theory,
see Jacobs and Nash, 2003). Feminist
geographers’ relations with the discipline
have been framed through notions of am-
bivalence and themetaphorsof paradox-
ical and in-between space (Bondi, 2004).
(2) Sexism within geographical institutions
(in the teaching of geography, the staffing
of academic departments, and through
the publication process) has been a
persistent concern (Monk and Hanson,
1982; Rose, 1993; Bondi, 2004). In the
past decade, this has been intertwined
with critiques of persistent racism in
the discipline.
(3) Nelson and Seager (2005, p. 6) position
feminist geography as ‘an innately inter-
disciplinary sub-field’. Within the discip-
line, feminist geographers practice this
tendency by tracing the interconnections
between all aspects of life, across the sub-
disciplinary boundaries of economic,
social,politicalandcultural geog-
raphy. This entails breaking down
boundaries within sub-disciplines as
well;for instance,by demonstrating the
interdependencies between informal
and formal aspects of theeconomy(see
domestic labour). In an associated way,
feminist geographers disrupt conven-
tional notions ofscale, and move across
scales to trace connections between
similar processes in different places
(Katz, 2001; Nagar, Lawson, McDowell
and Hanson, 2002).
(4) Most feminist geographers share a com-
mitment to situating knowledge, the view
that interpretations are context-bound
and partial, rather than detached and uni-
versal (seeaction research;phallocen-
trism, positionality; reflexivity;
qualitative methods;situated know-
ledge). This has produced a large litera-
ture on feminist methodologies,
including four journal symposia – Far-
row, Moss and Shaw (1995), Hodge
(1995) and Nast (1994b) – and two
books (Jones III, Nast and Roberts,
1997; Moss, 2002). It has also led to ex-
perimental writing, including various
modes of self-reflexivity(for a critical
evaluation of these experiments, see
Rose, 1997b), and to efforts to disrupt
the individualist author (e.g. the fused
subject of Julie Graham and Kathy
Gibson as J.K. Gibson-Graham, the
Women in Geography Study Group writ-
ing collective, and collaborations be-
tween academics and community
groups).Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_F Final Proof page 245 31.3.2009 1:20pmFEMINIST GEOGRAPHIES