This article was downloaded by: [University of Waikato]

On: 29 January 2015, At: 00:44

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal

of Feminist Geography
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgpc20

VIEWPOINT The Body and Geography

ROBYN LONGHURST
Published online: 14 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: ROBYN LONGHURST (1995) VIEWPOINT The Body and Geography, Gender,
Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 2:1, 97-106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09663699550022134

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified
with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
 G ender, P lace and C ulture , V ol. 2 , N o. 1 , 1 9 9 5 97

V IEW POINT

T he B ody and G eography

Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015

R OBY N LONGH URST, D ep artm ent of G eography , U niversity of W aikato, N ew Z eala nd

ABSTRACT T his p aper highlights som e of the m ajo r issues involved in theorising the b ody . D ualism s
such as m ind/ b ody , sex/ gender and essentialism / constructionism are discussed in order to p rovide a
starting point for unde rstanding the his torical privileging of the conce ptual over the corporeal in the
p roductio n of hegem onic, m asculinis ed and disem b odied geographical know ledges. T he pap er also review s
som e of the current literature in fem inist geograp hy that prob lem atises the m ind/ b ody sp lit and m akes the
sexed b ody explicit. T his literature, I b elieve, provides fertile ground for further interdiscip linary and
geographical inq uiry .

Intro du ctio n

`The crisis of Reason’ (Grosz, 1993, p. 187) is now forcing m any geographers to examine
critically the actual production of geographical knowledge and to question m any of the
discipline’s founding presumptions. I suggest a historical privileging of the purely
conceptual over the corporeal is on e of the presumptions that underlies the production
of geographical knowledge. Therefore , a way for feminist geographers to subvert the
hegemony that masculinity has over this knowledge, m ay be to create an upheaval of the
dominant/subordinate structure of the relation betw een mind and body and to sexually
em body geographical knowledge.
The ® rst aim of this paper is to highlight som e the major issues involved in theorising
the body. The paper is a starting point for what I think will becom e a rapidly expanding
literature in geography. D ualismsÐ such as mind/body, sex/gender and essentialism/
constru ctionism Ð are discussed brie¯ y in the hope that they indicate at least some of the
ways in which the body has been disavowed in the production of geographical
knowledge. The second aim of the paper is to review some of the recent geographical
literature that problematises the mind/body split. The review is only partial and is
intended to point to, rather than to cover extensively, an area which I consider to be
fertile ground for geographical and interdisciplinary fem inist work .
0966-36 9X /95/ 010097± 105
Ó 1995 Journals O xford Ltd
 98 R . L onghurs t

C o rpo real Places

There has been m uch recent debate on the body (see for example Foucault, 1980; 1985;
1986; Turner, 1984; 1992; Irigaray, 1985; Gallop, 1988; Gatens, 1988; 1991a ; 1991b ;
1992; R iley, 1988; Bord o, 1989; Braidotti, 1989; Grosz, 1989; 1992; 1993; Butler, 1990;
H araway, 1990; Young, 1990; Kirby, 1992 to name but a few). In most of this work the
authors are quick to point out that there is, of course, no one bodyÐ the body is a
m asculinist illusion. There are only bodies in the plural. M uch discussion focuses on the
com plex processes throu gh which fem ale and m ale bodies are differentiated. M oira
Gatens (1991b , p. 82) explains that the metaphor of a human body is not a cohere nt one:
`images of human bodies are im ages of either m en’s bodies or women’ s bodies’. Bodies
are sexed .
W hile this point is made explicit in m uch of the recent theorising on the body, the
seemingly simple question `what is the body?’, how ever, tends to be less thorou ghly
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015

examined. Those theorists who do attem pt to address the question often rem ain
bewildered. At the end of the book T he B ody and S ociety , Bryan Turner (1984, p. 7) admits
that he is even more confou nded by the `crassly obvious’ question `What is the body?’
V icki K irby (1992, p. 1) probes this puzzling matter com m only called the body and
claims `the body is a terra incognito ’ . She asks, how do w e think this `corporeal place’ ? Liz
Grosz (1992, p. 243), w ho, for a number of years, has also researched the body, claims:
By b ody I understand a concrete, material, animate organization of ¯ esh,
organs, nerves, muscles, and skeletal structure which are given a unity,
cohesiveness, and organization only throu gh their psychical and social inscrip-
tion as the surface and raw materials of an integrated and cohesive total-
ity.¼ The body becomes a hum an body, a body which coincides with the `shape’
and space of a psyche, a body whose epidermic surface bounds a psychical
unity, a body which thereby de® nes the limits of experience and subjectivity,
in psychoanalytic terms through the intervention of the (m )other, and ulti-
m ately, the Other or Symbolic order (language and rule-govern ed social order).
(original em phasis).
Grosz’ s de® nition allows for some sense of what a body m ight be but the `m atter’ at hand
remains slippery and most certainly problematic.
Along with such attem pts to de® ne the puzzling `matter’ of the body, there have
em erged in feminist discourses, a number of themes concerning embodiment. One of
these themes is that in modern W estern culture, while white men could transcend their
em bodiment by seeing it as a simple con tainer for the pure consciousness it held inside,
this was not allowed for women, blacks, hom osexuals, people with disabilities, the elderly
and so on. A number of feminists (such as Bordo, 1986; Fox Keller, 1985; Grosz, 1993)
have argued that what theorists of rationality after D escartes saw as de® ning rational
knowledge was its independence from the social position of the knower. M asculinist
rationality is a form of knowledge w hich assumes a knower who believes he can separate
himself from his body, emotion s, values, past experiences and so on . This allows for him
and his thoughts (his mind) to be autonom ous, transcendent and objective; mess and
m atter-fre e so to speak. Gillian Rose (1993a , p. 7) points out, the assumption of an
objectivity untainted by any particular social position (or any particular body) allow s this
kind of rationality to claim itself as universal. This supposed universality is what M ichele
Le D oeuff (1987) refers to as the exhaustiveness of m asculinist claim s to know ledge; it
assum es that it is com prehensive, and thus the only knowledge possible. Rose (1993a , p.
7) notes that by the late eighteenth century, a certain form of rationality became
 V iew point 99

identi® ed with, and in turn identi® ed, masculinity. Conv ersely, fem ininity was associated
with the non-rationalÐ hystericalÐ Other (see Foucault, 1980 and Irigaray, 1985 on the
hystericisation of women’s bodies).

T he M ind /B od y D ualism

The m ind/body dualism is central to W estern thought (Gatens, 1991a , p. 1)Ð including
geography [1]. Geographers to date have focused at some length on other dualisms, in
particular the culture/nature dualism (for exam ple, Fitzsimmons, 1989) but as yet, have
barely com m ented on the m ind/body dualism despite the fact that these two are
inextricably linked. It is evident that geographers have a long history of con¯ ating nature
and the body (of W om an). For example, the frontispiece to D ouglas Porteou s’s (1990)
chapter on `Bodyscape’ offers readers an abstract drawing w hich can be read as a
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015

m ountainous landscape and/or as the bodies of naked women.

The separation of the mind from the body remains a dominant con ception in W estern
culture and as Louise John son (1989) argues, the social sciences, including geography,
have been built on this conception of the m ind and body as separate and acting on each
other. Also, this division betw een m ind and body has been con ceptually and historically
sexualised (Gatens, 1988, p. 61). The mind has traditionally been correlated with positive
terms such as reason, subject, consciousness, interiority, activity and, of course, masculin-
ity. The body, on the other hand, has been implicitly associated with negative term s such
as passion, object, non-con sciousness, exteriority, passivity and of course, femininity (see
Grosz, 1989, p. xiv). Vicki K irby (1992, pp. 12± 13) extends this correlation between
W om an and the body to make the point that W om an is the body: `She rem ains stuck in
the primeval ooze of N ature’s sticky imm anence, a victim of the vagaries of her emotion s,
a creature who can’ t think straight as a consequence’ .

T he B od y as G eo gra phy’ s O th er

It would be som ewhat misleading to claim that this division between mind and body has
led to the body simply being absent and the m ind being present in geographical
discourse. R ather, it is as though the body has acted as geography’ s Other; it has been
both denied and desired depending on the particular school of geographical thought
under con sideration. T his is not surprising given that the Sam e or Self requires an Other
against which it can identify itself. This is a point which has been m ade by a num ber
of fem inist critics of m asculine rationality, including Rose (1993a , p. 9). Rose argues that
R eason is not the whole story of m asculinism: in order to establish rationality, there m ust
be a contrast with the irrational. D isciplinary know ledge can de® ne itself throu gh its own
ability to know only if there are others w ho are incapable of know ing. For a m asculinity
de® ned in part through its rationality, its O ther must be deemed irrational.
Different schools of geographical thought have dealt with the body in various w ays.
R ose (1993a) provides tw o useful exam ples of this: ® rst, tim e-geography and second,
humanistic geography. Tim e-geography, Rose (1993a , p. 28) suggests, has a number of
omissions: the emotional, the passionate, the disruptive, and the feelings of relations with
others. She claim s `Time-geography tries to ignore the body¼ There is no bodily passion
or desire’ (1993a , p. 31). Rose describes the masculinism of time-geography as `social
science m asculinism’.
Humanistic geography, on the other hand, does not assert its masculinism in quite the
same way. W hereas tim e-geography represses all reference to a feminised Other,
 100 R . L onghurst

including the body, in order to establish a claim to exhaustive know ledge, hum anistic
geographers acknowledge an O ther in the form of place itself. R ose (1993a , p. 45) refers
to this as `aesthetic m asculinity’. She argues that humanistic geographers retrieve the
body into their studies. An example of this can be seen in the work of D avid Seamon
who in the late 1970s used the pre-discursive, phenom enolog ical `lived’ body, theorised
in the work of Merleau-Pon ty, to explore ways in which people move throu gh and
occupy space. In particular, Seamon (1979) observed and carried out interviews with
groups of students in order to elicit dim ensions of their `lifeworlds’. In this way, he
recovered the body from its invisibility in geography and emphasised the need to
consider differently embodied subjectivities for understanding spaces and places. W hat
Seamon failed to recognise in his research, however, w as the signi® cance of these bodies
being coloure d, sexual and sexed .
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015

T he S ex /G en der D ualism

Fem inist geographers have also tended to treat the body as geography’ s Other. Perhaps
the most obvious way in which this has occurred is in the use of the sex/gender
distinction. The distinction between sex and gender did not originate from fem inist
writings; rather, it was derived from the work of psychologist R obert Stoller. In 1968 he
published a book called S ex and G ender in which he argued that the biological sex of a
person augments but does not determine the appropriate gender identity for that person.
R ather, a person’ s gender identity is prim arily the result of post-natal psychological
in¯ uences.
This distinction between sex and gender was adopted by a number of in¯ uential
feminist writers including theorists such as Germ aine Greer, K ate M illet, Ann Oakley,
Nancy Chodorow and M ichele Barrett. Feminist geography was not im mune to these
feminist discourses on sex and gender. Johnson (1990, p. 17) notes the writings of fem inist
geographers have, by and large, been perm eated by a distinction between sex and gender
(see for example, McD owell, 1983; M acK enzie, 1984; 1987; W omen and Geography
Study Group, 1984; Foord & Gregson, 1986). Johnson (1990, p. 18) argues that there are
a num ber of implications of employing the sex/gender distinction in geography. One of
these is `the om ission of the body as a vital element in the constitution of m asculine and
feminine identity and the consignment of those who argue for a ª corporeal femi-
nismº ¼ into the nether w orld of biological essentialism’ . Johnson claims that geogra-
phers, `in their zeal to avoid the accusation of biologism and by embracing the logics of
historical materialism and liberalism, have ignored the possibilities of examining the
sexed body in space’ .

T he E ssentialist/C onstru ction ist D ua lism

Today it seems inadmissible to theorise sex and gender as discrete and separate entities
(see Butler, 1993; Gatens, 1991b ; Haraway, 1991 for a critique of the sex/gender
distinction), yet this distinction still m anifests itself in som e feminist discourses on
em bodiment. One approach to understanding em bodiment tends to be broadly labelled
`essentialist’. Com mentators such as Gallop (1988), Irigaray (1985), Rich (1986) and
Braidotti (1989, 1991) are often read and cited as belonging in this category (although
clearly texts are read in a m ultiplicity of ways and labels such as `essentialist’ are highly
contestableÐ see K irby, 1992). Essentialist approaches tend to take the differentiated
 V iew p oint 101

em bodiment of subjectivity, or the biological/anatom ical body that is com m only pur-
ported to be the `real’ body, as a starting point for feminist analyses.
Other fem inists (for exam ple Haraway, 1990; 1991; Moi, 1988) are often read as being
less willing to adopt essentialist approaches, fearing that reference to the physical body
will only serve to naturalise what is in fact social difference. Constructionist feminists
argue that bodies are discursively produced. Much of the feminist work in this area has
been derived from theorists such as Friedrich N ietzsche, Franz K afka, M ichel Foucault
and Gilles D eleuze. Bodies are con sidered to be prim ary objects of inscriptionÐ surfaces
on which values, morality, and social laws are inscribed. Constructionist feminists tend
to be concerned w ith the processes by which bodies are written upon, m arked, scarred,
transform ed or constructed by various institutional regimes (see Grosz, 1993, pp.
196± 199 for an account of `inscriptive’ approaches to the body).
Over the last few years there has been extensive debate between those who argue for
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015

an essentialist approach and those who argue for a social con structionist approach. Y et,
as Fuss (1989) and K irby (1992) suggest, the distinction between these tw o approaches
to the body might not be as clear as it is often assumed. K irby (1992, p. 1) argues that
these seemingly opposing positions are actually inseparable, sharing a com plicitous
relationship that produces material effects. Chris Shilling (1993) adopts what is some-
times known as the `dialectic’ position, arguing that bodies cannot be reduced to either
the `social’ or the `natural’ but rather they are simultaneously constructed and real. In
adopting either an essentialist or a constru ctionist approach, a very clear distinction
betw een sex and gender develops.
Feminist geographers seem to have been slow to respond to analysing these sex/gen-
der and essentialist/constru ctionist dualisms which underlie our work . I am not disputing
the fact that there has been some excellent work carried out by geographers w ho have
re¯ ected a great deal on these issues (see for exam ple, Johnson, 1990; Bondi, 1992a,
1992b ; Cream, 1992, 1994; McD owell, 1993; R ose, 1993a, 1993b ); rather, I simply w ant
to suggest that there exists scope for much more work to be done in this area. The
unsettling of old dualisms raises some interesting questions for feminist geographers. For
example, if recent theories of em bodim ent have exposed the inconsistencies of the
sex/gender system, where does it leave `us’? D o `we’ want to still hang on to the notions
of sex and gender? Are they still strategic and w hen and where will they cease to be?
These are questions which I cannot necessarily answer given the scope of this paper but
I believe they are w orthy of re¯ ection.

E m b od ied G eo gra phies

I want now to consider speci® cally, although brie¯ y, examples of work that seeks to
subvert the m ind/body and sex/gender dualisms, thereby resisting, at least in part, the
m asculinism of hegemonic geography.
In 1989 Louise Johnson presented a paper entitled `Embodying geographyÐ some
implications of considering the sexed body in space’ to the ® fteenth New Zealand
Geography Conference. Johnson (1989, p. 134) argued that since the early/mid-1970s
feminists in geography have been engaging in a critique and reconceptualisation of the
discipline and that now, a further excursion into recent fem inist theorising on the body
could offer new challenges to, and exciting possibilities for, human geography. Johnson
draws on observational and interview work that she carried out in a textile m ill in
Geelong, Victoria, Australia in order to illustrate how strategies to restore pro® tability in
the industry were con nected to a rede® nition and reaf® rmation of patriarchy. Integral to
 102 R . L onghurst

the process of restructuring, argues John son, was the mobilisation and rede® nition of
wom en’s place and bodies (see also Johnson, 1994, p. 107).
Like Johnson, Julia Cream also considers there to be som e rich possibilities in
examining recent feminist theorising on em bodiment and she is currently engaged in
using a social con structionist approach to the body in an attem pt to re® gure geography.
In a paper entitled `Sexing shapes’ (1992), Cream says that she wants to focus on the
bodyÐ its past, present and future constructions of sex. Cream points out that the whole
concept of what it means for a body to be sexed is contextual in time and place. In a
m ore recent paper, `Out of place’ (1994), Cream makes an argument for rede® ning body
contou rs. Cream argues this redrawing of body con tours raises questions such as: on
what grounds do we m ake alliances; how do we use the notion of com munity; and, do
we still need to base our de® nitions in biology? Such questions serve to prom pt an
examination of the ways in which the body is entering geographical discourse and the
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015

ways in w hich we are acknowledging our embodiments.

The m atter of the body does not escape fem inist geographer Lauren Costello either.
In examining the lives of hom eless girls, Costello (1993, pp. 8± 9) m akes the point that
they use their bodies to signify new modes of fem ininity, claim ing that hom eless girls use
body odour, distinctive after extended periods on the streets, as another m echanism of
survivalÐ as a source of protection from sexual advances from males outside their
culture.
Heidi Nast & V irginia Blum (1994) adopt a more theoretical approach. These authors
use a feminist psychoanalytic perspective in order to reconsider (or m ore speci® cally to
decentre or deconstruct) the phallus in terms of particular spatial praxes in which
subjecthood is constituted throu gh appropriating and m oving actively (as `subjects’ )
through space. By doing this Nast & Blum aim to open up possibilities for developing
alternative strategies and places for understanding and overcoming the m aterial under-
girdings of oppressive form s of gender constru ction and sexuality.
Gillian Rose is another fem inist geographer w ho is engaged currently in work on the
sexed body. Rose, who has probably published more than any other geographer in this
area (1991, 1992, 1993a, 1993b), m akes politically strategic use of fem inist discourses on
the m aternal body, or woman as m other, in order to subvert masculinist structures of
knowledge in geography. The sophistication of Rose’s arguments, in terms of her
questioning of the epistemology and on tology of the discipline, suggests that the notion
of an `explicit sexualisation of know ledges ’ (Grosz, 1993, p. 188, original emphasis) m ust be
taken seriously by geographers.
These are just a few exam ples of work on the body that is emerging in fem inist
geography. Fem inists are not the only geographers, however, who are currently claim ing
the body as a site of resistance. There is a proliferation of work on the them e of
`Sexuality and Space’ [2] (not surprisingly perhaps, much of the work in this area could
also be considered feminist geography). R esearch by people such as Adler & Brenner
(1992), Bell (1991, 1994), Bell et al . (1994), Bondi (1992b ), Jackson (1994), Knopp (1990a,
1990b , 1992), McD ow ell (1993) and V alentine (1992, 1993), to name but a few, is
playing a vital role in retheorising geographyÐ a retheorising that involves problematis-
ing the m ind/body split and m aking the body (a body that is both sexed and sexual)
explicit in the production of geographical knowledge.

C o nclu sio n

At this stage, much of the geographical work that has been conducted on the body
 V iew p oint 103

remains unpublished or has been published only in conference proce edings rather than
in mainstream , refereed geographical journals or books. W ork on the body is still a small
subdisciplinary area within geography (including fem inist geography). Yet, there is a
great deal for geographers to gain from current feminist scholarship on the body. I do
not m ean by way of simply focusing on or inserting the body into geographical discourse
(although this m ay provide a useful start), but rather, that any upheaval of the
dominant/subordinate structure betw een mind and body, between sex and gender, and
betw een essentialism and constru ctionism will threaten the dominant term ’s unques-
tioned a p riori dom inance in the discipline. As post-rationalist, post-colonialist, post-
m odernist and post-structuralist feminisms gain both popularity and recognition within
the discipline I think that the body m ay become a key area for future w ork.

A ckno w led gem ents

Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015

An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Association of A merican Geogra-
phers ninetieth Annual Meeting, 29 M arch± 2 April 1994 in San Francisco. I would like
to acknowledge the contrib utions of those people who com m ented in this session. I would
also like to acknowledge Larry Berg, Robin Peace, Catherine Pelissier and Anna
Yeatm an for their input on various drafts of this paper. Finally, I would like to thank
three anon ymous referees for their useful com ments. I remain responsible for the ® nal
version.

C orresp ondence : Robyn Longhurst, D epartm ent of Geography, University of W aikato,

Private Bag 3105, H am ilton, New Zealand.

NO TES
[1] See Bond i (1992a) & Dom osh (1992), M cDowell (1991), Rose (1993), Sayer (1989), Vaiou (1992) and Berg
(1994) for accounts of dualistic thinking in geograp hy.
[2] In 1992 D av id B ell estab lished a netw ork called `Sexu ality an d Space’ . T his network prov ides a list of
contact add resses of people who are w orking on or interested in `geograp hies of sexualities’. It also
organ ises w orksh op s, pap er-sessio ns at conferences, publications, and social events for m em bers. It is also
w orth noting that in 1992 Beatriz C olom ina edited a collection of essay s published in a volu m e entitled
S exuality and S pace.

R EFERENCES
A D LER , S. & B R E NN E R , J. (1992) G ender an d sp ac e: lesb ians and gay m en in the city, International J o urnal of
U rb an and R egional R esearch, 16, pp. 24± 34.
B ELL , D. (1991) Insign i® cant others: lesb ian and gay geograp hies, A rea, 23, pp. 323± 329.
B ELL , D. (1994) [Screw]ing geograp hy (censor’ s version ), paper presen ted to the A ssociatio n of A m erican G eographers
ninetieth A nnual M eeting, 29 M arch± 2 Ap ril, San F ran cisco.
B ELL , D., B INN IE , J., C R E A M , J. & V AL EN TIN E , G . (1994) All hyped up and no place to go, G ender, P lace and
C ulture, 1, pp. 31± 47.
B ER G , L. (1994) M ascu linity, place, and a binary discourse of `theory’ an d `em pirical investigation’ in the
hum an geograp hy of Aotearo a/ N ew Zealan d, G ender, P lace and C ulture, 1, pp. 245± 260.
B O N D I , L. (1992a) G ender and dichotom y, P rogress in H um an G eography , 16, pp. 157± 170.
B O N D I , L . (1992b) Sexing the city, paper presen ted at the A ssociatio n of A m erican G eographers C onference, San Diego.
B O N D I , L. & D O M O S H , M . (1992) O ther ® gures in other plac es: on fem inism , postm od ern ism and geograp hy,
S ociety and S pace, 10, pp. 199± 213.
B O R D O , S. (1986) The C artesian m asculinization of thought, S igns, 11, pp. 239± 256.
B O R D O , S. (1989) The body and the reprodu ction of fem ininity: a fem inist app ropriation of F ou cault, in:
A . M . J A G G E R , & S. B O R D O G ender/ B ody / K now ledge: fem inis t constructions o f b eing and know ing (N ew B runsw ick,
N J and L on don, Rutgers, U niversity Press).
 104 R . L onghurst

B R A ID O T TI , R. (1989) The politics of on tological differen ce, in: T . B R E N NA N (Ed.) B etw een F em inis m and
P sy choanalysis (Lon don and N ew Y ork, Routledge).
B R A ID O T TI , R. (1991) P atte rns of D is sonance (C am brid ge, Polity Press).
B U TLE R , J. (1990) G ender T roub le: fem inism and the sub version of identity (N ew Y ork, Routledge).
B U TLE R , J. (1993) B odies T hat M atter: o n the dis cursive lim its of sex (N ew York and Lon don, Routled ge).
C O LO M IN A , B. (1992) S ex uality and S pace (N ew Y ork, Princeton A rchitectural Press).
C O ST ELLO , L. (1993) N ew ways of seein g, new stories to tell: hom eless girls, fem inism and postm od ernity,
unpublished M S, Departm ent of G eograph y and Environmental Science, M on ash U niversity, Victoria.
C R E A M , J. (1992) Sexing shap es, S exuality and S pace N etw o rk, L esb ian and G ay G eographers? P roce edings (Lon don).
C R E A M , J. (1994) O ut of place, paper presen ted to the A ssociation of A m erican G eographers ninetieth A nnual M eeting,
29 M arch± 2 A pril, San Francisco.
F IT Z SIM M O N S , M . (1989) T he matter of nature, A ntipode, 21, pp. 106± 120.
F O O R D , J. & G R EG SO N , N . (1986) Patriarc hy: toward s a rec on ceptualisation, A ntipode, 18, pp. 186± 211.
F O U C A U LT , M . (1980) T he H istory o f S ex uality , V olum e 1 : A n I ntroduction, trans. R . Hurley (N ew York,
V intage/ Random H ou se).
F O U C A U LT , M . (1985) T he U se of P leasure, V olum e 2 of the H istory of S ex uality , trans. R. H urley (N ew York,
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015

Pantheon ).
F O U C A U LT , M . (1986) T he C are of the S elf, V olum e 3 of the H istory of S exuality , trans. R. H urley (N ew York,
Pantheon ).
F O X K E LLE R , E. (1985) R e¯ ections on G ender and S cience (N ew H aven, C T, Yale U niversity Press).
F U SS , D. (1989) E ssentially S peaking (N ew York and Lon don, Routled ge).
G A LLO P , J. (1988) T hinking T hrough the B ody (N ew York , Colu mbia U niversity Press).
G A TE N S , M . (1988) Tow ards a fem inist philosop hy of the body, in: B. C A IN E , E. G R O S Z , E. & D E
L EPE R V A N C H E , M . (Eds) C rossing B o undaries: fem inis m s and critiq ues o f know ledges (Sydney, Allen & U nwin).
G A TE N S , M . (1991a) Em bod im ent, ethics and difference, O ccas ional P aper S eries, 1 (U niversity of W aikato,
D ep artm ent of W om en’s Studies).
G A TE N S , M . (1991b) A critique of the sex/gend er distinction, in: S. G U N E W A R eader in F em inist K now ledges (N ew
Y ork and Lon don, R ou tledge).
G A TE N S , M . (1992) Pow er, bodies and differen ce, in: M . B A R R ET T & A. P H ILLIPS (Eds) D estab iliz ing T he ory :
conte m porary fem inis t deb ates (C am bridge, Polity Press).
G R O SZ , E. (1989) S ex ual S ub versions: three F rench fem inis ts (Sydney, Allen & U nwin).
G R O SZ , E. (1992) B odies-c ities, in: B . C O LO M IN A (Ed.) S ex uality and S pace (Princeton, N J, Princeton A rchitectural
Press).
G R O SZ , E. (1993) Bodies and know led ges: fem inism an d the crisis of Reason , in: L. A LC O FF & E. P O TT ER (Eds)
F em inist E pis tem ologies (N ew York, R ou tledge).
H A R A W AY , D. (1990) A man ifesto for cyborgs, in: L. N IC H O LSO N (Ed.) F em inism / P ostm o dernism (Lon don,
R ou tledge).
H A R A W AY , D . (1991) S im ians, C y b orgs, and W om en: the reinvention of nature (Lond on , Free A ssociation Books).
I R IG A R A Y , L. (1985) S peculum of the O ther W om an (orig. 1974) trans. G . C . G ILL (N ew Y ork, C ornell University
Press).
J A C K S O N , P. (1994) B lac k m ale: advertising and the cultural politics of mascu linity, G ender, P lace and C ulture, 1,
pp. 49± 59.
J O H NS O N , L. (1989) Embod ying geograp hyÐ som e im plication s of considering the sexed body in space, N ew
Z ealand G eographical S ociety P roceedings of the F ifteenth N ew Z ealand G eography C onference, Dunedin, A ugust, pp.
134± 138.
J O H NS O N , L. (1990) N ew cou rses for a gen dered geograp hy: teaching fem inist geograp hy at the U niversity of
W aikato, A ustralian G eographical S tudie s, 28, pp. 16± 27.
J O H NS O N , L. (1994) W hat future for fem inist geograp hy? G ender, P lace and C ulture, 1, pp. 103± 114.
K IR B Y , V. (1992) A ddressing essen tialism differently¼ som e thoughts on the corpo-real, O ccasio nal P aper S eries,
4 (U niversity of W aikato, Departm ent of W om en’s S tudies).
K N O P P , L. (1990a) Social con sequen ces of hom osexuality, G eographical M agaz ine, 62, pp. 20± 25.
K N O P P , L. (1990b) Som e theoretical im plication s of gay involv em ent in the urban lan d m arket, P olitica l
G eography Q uarterly, 9, pp. 337± 352.
K N O P P , L. (1992) Sexu ality and the sp atial dynam ics of capitalism , E nvironm ent and P lanning D : S ociety and S pace,
10, pp. 651± 670.
L E D O EU FF , M . (1987) W om en in philosoph y, in: T. M O I (Ed.) F rench F em inist T hought: a reader (O xford,
B lac kw ell).
M A C K E NZ IE , S. (1984) Editorial introdu ction, A ntipode, 16, pp. 3± 10.
 V iew p oint 105

M A C K E NZ IE , S. (1987) N eglected spaces in perip heral places: hom ew ork ers and the creation of a new econom ic
centre, C ahiers di G eographic du Q ueb ec, 31, pp. 247± 260.
M C D O W ELL , L. (1983) T ow ards an understan ding of the gen der division of urban sp ac e, E nvironment and P lanning
D : S o ciety and S pace, 1, pp. 59± 72.
M C D O W ELL , L . (1991) The bab y and the bath w ater: diversity, deconstruction and fem inist theory, G eoforum ,
22, pp. 123± 133.
M C D O W ELL , L. (1993) Pow er and mascu linity in city work places, paper presen ted at the Institute of B ritis h
G eographers A nnual C onference, Lon don.
M O I, T. (1988) S ex ual/ T ex tual P olitics : fem inist literary theory (Lon don an d N ew York, R ou tledge).
N A S T , H . & B LU M , V. (1994) G eograph y an d sexu ality: a fem inist psychoan alytic persp ective, paper presen ted
to the A ssociation of A m erican G eographe rs ninetieth A nnual M eeting, 29 M arch± 2 A pril, San Fran cisco.
P O R TE O U S , D. (1990) L andscapes of the M ind (Toronto, University of Toron to Press).
R IC H , A. (1986) N otes toward s a politics of location, B lood, B read and P oetry : selected prose 1 9 7 9 ± 1 9 8 5 (N ew York,
W . W . N orton & Co.).
R ILE Y , D. (1988) `A m I that nam e?’: fem inis m and the category `w om en’ in his tory (Lon don, M acm illan).
R O S E , G . (1991) O n being am bivalent: w om en and fem inism s in geograp hy, in: C . P H ILO (Ed.) N ew W ords, N ew
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015

W orlds: reconceptualising social and cultural geography , C onference Proc eedings, Departm ent of Geograph y,
U niversity of Edinburgh, 10± 12 Sep tem ber. (C am brian Printers, A berystw yth, Social and C ultural Geogra-
phy Study G rou p of the Institute of B ritish G eograp hers).
R O S E , G. (1992) G eograp hy as a science of observa tion: the lan dscape, the gaz e and mascu linity, in: F. D R IV ER
& G . R O S E (Eds) N ature and S cience: essay s in the his tory of geographical know ledge, N o. 28 (H istorical G eograp hy
R esearch Series, February).
R O S E , G . (1993a) F em inism and G eography : the lim its of geographical know ledge (C am bridge, Polity Press).
R O S E , G . (1993b) Som e notes toward s thinking about the spaces of the future, in J. B IR D , B. C U R TIS , T.
P U T N AM , G. R O B ER T SO N & L. T IC K N ER (Eds) M apping the F utures (Lond on , Routledge).
S A Y E R , A. (1989) Dualistic thinking an d rh etoric in geograp hy, A rea, 21, pp. 301± 305.
S E A M O N , D. (1979) T he G eography of the L ife w o rld (N ew York, St M artin’ s Press).
S H ILLIN G , C . (1993) T he B ody and S ocial T heory (Lon don, Sage).
S T O LLE R , R. (1968) S ex and G ender (Lon don, Hogarth Press).
T U R N ER , B . (1984) T he B ody and S ociety : ex plorations in social theo ry (O xford , Basil Blackwell).
T U R N ER , B . (1992) R egulating B odies: essay s in m edical sociology (L on don an d N ew York, Rou tledge).
V A IO U , D. (1992) G ender divisions in urban space: beyon d the rigidity of dualist classi® cations, A ntipode, 24, pp.
247± 262.
V A LE N TIN E , G . (1992) O ut of sight, out of m ind: a geograp hy of a lesb ian com munity, P roceedings: L esb ian and
G ay G eographies C onference, U K , Sexuality and Sp ace N etw ork .
V A LE N TIN E , G. (1993) (H etero)sexing space: lesbian percep tion and exp erien ces of everyd ay space, E nvironment
and P lanning D : S ociety and S pace, 11, pp. 395± 413.
W O M E N A ND G E O G R A PH Y S TU D Y G R O U P O F T H E IBG (1984) G eography and G ender: an introduction to fem inis t
geography (Lon don, H utchinson ).
Y O U NG , I. (1990) T hrow ing L ike a G irl and O ther E ssay s in F em inis t P hilos ophy and S ocial T heory, (B loom ington, IN,
Indiana U niversity Press).
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 00:44 29 January 2015