“Gender, Identity and Place Understanding Feminist Geographies” seeks to depict gendered issues with regards to a feminist-geographical perspective. Linda McDowell states: “My aim is to outline some of the main connections between geographical perspectives and feminist approaches and to illustrate them with empirical work that I have read and enjoyed over the last few years” (pg. viii). Whilst reading McDowell’s book it was clear she was focused on portraying gendered issues with a geographical outlook and often offered improvements that could be implemented into the feminist-geographical field. A defining aspect of the feminist-urban scholarship cited by McDowell has been the analysis of the complex interrelationships between who women are and the environments in which they live (spaces and places). McDowell uses a combination of primary data, in the form of interviews and her personal experience amongst others, and secondary data consisting mostly of other feminist and geographical findings, in order to make her assumptions. This was very useful as it allowed for a much wider scope of analyses than primary data solely and also allowed for a more personal perspective to her findings than secondary data alone. However, some may argue since the book was published in 1999 it may no longer be completely relevant with significant gendered events, such as the #MeToo movement, being subsequently unacknowledged. However I found “Gender, Identity and Place Understanding Feminist Geographies” to still be relevant as it illuminates issues within the world that are still apparent such as sexist gender norms/expectations and unequal geographical distribution of rights for women. As well as that, I found McDowell encouraged the reader to ruminate and take a personal stance on the issues raised by highlighting the problems of trying to stay impartial.
McDowell’s subject area is focused on feminist geographies and on geography as a whole. McDowell seeks to provide an understanding of the relationship between feminism and geography. She specifically highlights this motive on page viii where she states, “This book is an attempt to provide an answer to that question [what has gender to do with geography?]”. She also examines how women interact with and influence their spaces and places whether it be public or private and how different global environments across spatial and temporal spectrums influence our conception of gender. “Gender, Identity and Place Understanding Feminist Geographies” was also reprinted in 2004 which shows McDowell’s book was in high demand. Along with numerous positive critical reviews (Nast et al, 2000; Israel, 2015) McDowell’s’ book appears to be received favorably. This could also suggest feminist geography is becoming more popular and thus McDowell’s work may be regarded as pioneering in the sense that she is amongst the early feminist geographers to ascertain geographical trends and patterns with a feminist approach in mind.
Whilst reading the book it became apparent that one of McDowell’s main motives was to highlight feminist-geography as a legitimate branch of research. Much of McDowell’s other work, such as “Capital Culture” (1997), “Redundant Masculinities” (2003) and “Working Lives: Gender, Migration and Employment in Britain, 1945-2007” (2013) show McDowell’s interest in gender and society; thus it can also be concluded that in “Gender, Identity and Place Understanding Feminist Geographies” McDowell takes a characteristic approach to illustrate the real relationship gender has to geography, like the relationship is has with culture and the economy listed in her other books above. McDowell criticises mainstream geography for being too much of a “hairy chested discipline” (pg. 27) highlighting the phallocentric nature of the discipline’s research topics and the researchers in general. For example, she shows that geography as a relatively male dominated subject focuses on the public space. Sociology however, a predominately female dominated subject, focuses more on the private space where women often play a more integral and visible role. McDowell believes geography would benefit from the research of these feminist sociologists into private life more than solely focusing on the public sphere with which geography is more associated with. Personally it would appear that McDowell included this in order to address this compatibility and overlooking issue which the majority of feminist-geographers, such as Gillian Rose (1993), Beverley Skeggs (1995), Joni Seager and Lise Nelson (2005) appear to share. They believe the private sphere has been understudied significantly when compared to male centered spaces. Consequentially I believe McDowell deliberately argued points from both public and private spaces in order to show how compatible feminist-geographies are with mainstream geography. It would appear from this perspective that McDowell’s overarching argument for feminist-geographical inclusivity in the geographical community has been thoroughly emotive as it draws connections between both topics which would often be overlooked and encourages the reader to apply the author’s thoughts to their personal experiences. As a result, it would seem that McDowell has made a strong case for the inclusion/respect of feminist-geography.
The overall arguments she makes can be summarised into how place and space relate to gender and their interconnected impacts on each other. Expanding upon this McDowell makes numerous points relating to themes varying from gender inequality to influences gender and place have on each other and the spatial variation between these affinities. For example, McDowell believes urban structures are gendered in both physical and metaphorical senses by the local and global populace. To illustrate this, she comments on how cities, such as New York and Paris, are assigned feminine gendered attributes in the form of promiscuity, sexualisation and charisma. However, whilst the communal attitudes towards an urban space may be considered feminine the utilitarianism associated with spaces and places is favored to suit the needs of the male populace by the design of cities and towns by making feminine places, such as nurseries, out of the way from industrial hubs within the same place. Moreover, McDowell also comments on how not all women have equal access to spaces as men and other groups of women. For example, women in Saudi Arabia aren’t allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by a male family member whereas women in any Western country can go out in public whenever they want by themselves. She argues that this creates, reinforces and encourages inequality amongst women in certain spaces. Therefore, McDowell effectively illustrates the relationship between place and gender by using empirical and secondary data to support her statements along with questions she poses to evoke an inner response from the reader which further stimulates her arguments.
Moreover I feel like McDowell also sought to follow Doreen Massey’s example of defining place in an increasingly more globalised world. This is suggested as, although McDowell’s main topic is feminist-geographies, she includes in her introduction a definition for both gender and place rather than for gender and geography. It would appear McDowell gave equal space for elaboration on both topics within the introduction and throughout the book as her chapter titles are centred on geographical components, such as “In and Out of Place”, “Displacements” and “Community, City and Locality”, in which she transposes gender studies into space/place topics to relate and contrast them. McDowell states “Geographers now argue that places are contested, fluid and uncertain” (pg. 4) thus giving her a reason to conceptualise the term place to better suit her areas of study. She argues that places are “made through power relations which construct the rules which define boundaries” (pg. 4). Through this definition McDowell sets the basis for her arguments relating to gender. According to this definition gender and place are closely related as both are concerned with power relations and boundaries set up by those with the most power. I felt McDowell balanced her conceptualisation of topics very well as she didn’t appear to favour or disregard feminism or geography with bias. Also, McDowell’s conceptualisation of key terms such as gender, place, sexism and feminism have helped her sustain her arguments by adding clarity for the reader, especially for those less familiar with geographical and/or feminist concepts. Thus, from reading “Gender, Identity and Place Understanding Feminist Geographies” it was clear what McDowell’s main arguments were focused on as she deployed complementing literature techniques such as clear conceptualisation, sufficient evidence in different formats and a clear academic focus on feminist-geographies for the reader to engage with.
As well as that, from reading “Gender, Identity and Place Understanding Feminist Geographies” it seems Linda McDowell had a deliberate format to the structure of her book. This can be seen by the order of the chapters. For example, each chapter of the book looks at different spatial scales, starting with the most intimate, the body as the space of the individual, then analysing the home, the workplace, the community, and then focusing on the state, national, and global context of geographical issues. McDowell’s final chapter on displacements analyses migration in the late 20th-century and its impacts on the economy, society and people in general. The final chapter is especially indicative of current trends in geography as mass displacement migration has been a hot topic amongst geographers, feminists and global governments such as the UK and USA, heightened during the 2016 USA presidential election with Trump’s wish to build his famous wall along the USA/Mexico border. Conflicts such as those in Syria, Israel and Iran have dominated political, sociological, geographical and economic interests since the mid-twentieth century and by addressing this topic McDowell roots her argument into the twentieth (and twenty-first) century. I believe McDowell may have deliberately chosen this format in order to use her opening chapters as a basis for general discussions on feminist geographies and to provide a didactic foundation for her work. Towards the denouement however, McDowell begins to not only summarise her main points but also raises further questions by addressing the still on-going issue of displacement possibly hoping for her work to be used in connection to future studies of displacement. This would be very clever on McDowell’s part as it ensures her work would be relevant for future scholars and government officials alike. In her introduction McDowell states she aims to “argue that places – local attachments – remain significant” (pg. 29). By starting with the most intimate place, the body, McDowell makes the subject relatable for all readers therefore helping them subsume themselves in her arguments. As she expands to the wider places in the world McDowell has managed to encourage and support the reader to follow along and remain immersed in her arguments. She has done this by using her personal experiences in order to portray a more human touch to her book and make it more relatable for the reader. Therefore it would appear McDowell has effectively used her structure to subliminally encourage the readers to subsume themselves in her arguments by starting with the universally relatable subject of the body and expanding from there to more public places.
In addition the research methods deployed by McDowell are primarily qualitative. This correlates with the majority of feminist and human geography research as the data collected using qualitative methods is often high in validity and avoids many ethical issues such as power dynamics. This is theoretically suitable as feminists and human geographers study primarily people and thus qualitative data allows for an in-depth detailed piece of research to be gathered to make valid educated assumptions. Feminist research, such as that undertaken by Rebecca Asher (2016) and Women and Geography Study Group (1997) both strongly favour qualitative data. Similarly, human geographical research such as that carried out by Doreen Massey (1991) and Sy Adler and Johanna Brenner (1992) also heavily favour qualitative data over quantitative. Consequentially it can be seen that McDowell follows the example of other researchers in her field. This is probably the most relevant form of research for McDowell’s topic as quantitative research wouldn’t provide detailed data on the relationships between gender and place.
Moreover McDowell reserves the postscript of her book to specifically talk about the issues feminist-geographers face when undertaking research in a chapter titled “Reflections on the Dilemmas of Feminist Research”. In this chapter McDowell highlights the problems many feminists and feminist-geographers face when conducting their research. For example, she mentions that many early feminists have ignored men in research and that many geographers still tend to ignore feminist-geographies within their discipline. McDowell tries to address these issues within her book by giving more attention to men and developing upon her geographical components. She uses her research to ascertain the answers to the issues and concerns that affect both men and women. For instance, when discussing the effort that goes into creating a home McDowell analyses secondary data from Bachelard (1969) and states he denies “the labour, of men as well as women, that goes into constructing and maintaining a dwelling, turning a house into a home” (pg. 72). I felt that McDowell deliberately included this postscript chapter in order to assure the readers that her research was not gender biased towards women. However, whilst McDowell did address issues men face as well as women, I feel her research had been primarily focused on women’s interpretation and relationship towards space. In certain cases McDowell gave the perception that men automatically had dominance over spaces and interpreted and exploited them differently to women in order to gain dominance or success from them. However, McDowell seems to omit the fact that men from different social standings can interpret places differently from other men from different groups. For example, homosexual men may feel less welcomed or safe in a public area compared to heterosexual men and often fear the threat of violence which would discourage them from visiting certain spaces. McDowell could therefore elaborate on her research techniques by analysing more of men’s and queer perceptions and relationships to environments. Therefore although McDowell’s research techniques suited her areas of study, I felt that she could have made a more representative argument by analysing both male and queer perspectives in wider detail in relation to place and gender. However, that being said McDowell utilised well-known feminist and human geographical research techniques, such as unstructured interviews, discourse analysis and secondary data analyses, effectively in order to show the relationship between women and place.
Much of McDowell’s intellectual context is sourced from similar schools of thought, being either feminists, geographers or feminist-geographers. This provides strong evidence for her to make her points whilst also adding validity to her arguments. As well as that McDowell also made use of data from numerous economists such as West (1982) and Warde (1991) which also allowed for her to have a broader discussion on the economic, industrial and governmental implications associated with place and gender. Thus as McDowell utilises numerous intellectual contexts it could be argued that her work would remain significant within the feminist-geography field. Similarly, the points McDowell makes are surprisingly significant to the contemporary discussions on gender. For example, in her conclusion McDowell raises the question “Is the category of gender now so fluid as to be meaningless?” (pg. 247). This is especially significant today as there is an ongoing heated debate about the fluidity and different types of gender that should be recognised ranging from cisgender, meaning identifying as the sex you were born with, to non-binary, meaning not identifying with any sex or gender solely. Moreover, McDowell later goes on to quote Susan Bordo (1990) that the issue of gender will always be relevant for discussion as “in our present culture, our activities are coded as “male” and “female” and will function as such within the prevailing system of “gender-power relations”” (pg. 248). Therefore from the evidence McDowell provides its clear gender will always play a vital role in the analyses of places as it is an immediate identifying indicator of a person, place, or environment.
In conclusion, I feel “Gender, Identity and Place Understanding Feminist Geographies” is intellectually stimulating and deliberately provocative, not in a confrontational sense, but in a manner to engage the reader and encourage in-depth personal analyses of how we interpret the spaces we occupy and to consider our personal relationship with our gender and place in the world. Moreover the methods used by McDowell have been analysed in depth above and it can be concluded that she provides sufficient evidence to back up her points. Her intended audience was most likely geographers more so than feminists as one of her main aims was to validate feminist-geography as a legitimate branch of geographical inquiry. However, whilst she may have intended for geographers to study her work I felt that she summarised and conceptualised her points clearly for anyone interested in the related fields that aren’t educated in them to follow. McDowell has created a book which I believe will be relevant for many years as it addresses gender issues which appear to be never ending in the world. Overall, “Gender, Identity and Place Understanding Feminist Geographies” provides a clear explanation and summary of the relationship between gender and place whilst also allowing for the readers personal views to develop/elaborate on the points she raises.
Adler, S. and J. Brenner. 1992. Gender and space: Lesbians and gay men in the city. Found in: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 16, 24-34.
Asher, R (2016) Man Up. London. Penguin.
Bachelard, G (1969) The Poetics of Space. Boston Beacon Press
Bordo, S. (1990) Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body. Berkeley. University of California Press.
Israel, L.Q. (2015) Gender, Identity, and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies, by Linda McDowell, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999, 284 pp. Found in: Localities 5, 181 – 186.
Massey, D. (1991) A Global Sense of Place. Marxism Today. London. Arnold
McDowell, L. (1997) Capital Culture. Oxford. Blackwell.
McDowell, L. (1999) Gender, Identity and Place Understanding Feminist Geographies. Oxford. Blackwell.
McDowell, L. (2003) Redundant Masculinities. Oxford. Blackwell.
McDowell, L. (2013) Working Lives: Gender, Migration and Employment in Britain, 1945-2007. Sussex. Wiley and Sons.
Nast, H.J., Valença, M.M., Valenç, M.M. & Paasi, A. (2000) Reviews: Gender, Identity and Place: Understanding Feminist Geographies, Lefebvre, Love and Struggle: Spatial Dialectics, Rethinking Geopolitics. Found in: Environment and Planning D: Space and Place 2000, 18, 279 – 284.
Rose, G. (1993), Feminism and Geography. Cambridge. Polity Press
Seager, J. and Nelson, L (ed.) (2005) A Companion to Feminist Geography. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing.
Skeggs, B (ed.) (1995), Feminist Process Theory Process and Production. Manchester. Manchester University Press.
Warde, A. (1991) Gentrification as Consumption: issues of class and gender. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, pgs. 9, 223 – 32.
West, J. (1982) Women, Work and the Labour Market. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Women and Geography Study Group (ed.) (1997) Feminist Geographies Explorations in Diversity and Difference. Essex. Addison Wesley Longman.
