Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Meeting of Minds?Author(s): John SilkSource: Area, Vol. 15, No. 3 (1983), p. 243Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20001941 .
Accessed: 12/06/2014 17:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:06:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Meeting of minds 243
Meeting of minds?
Report of a meeting organised by the Women and Geography Study Group on 14 May 1983, at University College, London
Most of those attending the meeting, which attracted about 35 people, were from institutions of further or higher education, but schools and publishers were also represented. The morning session was introduced by Jo Foord (Kent), who summarised the characteristics of major modes of thought in human geography since the early 1970s, and concluded that feminist theory and practice had impinged only lightly upon them, if at all. Linda Peake (Reading) and John Silk (Reading) then took part in a structured discussion of about 25 minutes on 'The impact of femi nist thought on geographers' theory and practice', followed by half an hour of open discussion. This unusual format was chosen in order to break down the traditional barriers between active speakers and passive audience, to sustain participants' attention levels, and to emphasise the relationship between theory and practice. Drawing on the importance of the concept in both feminist and critical theory, meaning took a central role in discussion, as did the relations between the spheres of production and consumption, the latter sphere being particularly important, at least to date, in struggles engaged in by women in general and feminists in particular. Judging by the reaction of all concerned, the experimental format paid off, perhaps justifying at least some of the criticisms of the political practice of left wing groups made by Rowbotham et al. (1979). Discussion was lively and halted briefly only so as to get to the coffee before it went cold!
After the break, Andrew Sayer (Sussex) asked 'What kind of marxism for what kind of femin ism?', pointing out the unacknowledged compatibility between socialist feminist practice, as defended in Beyond thefragments (Rowbotham, S., Segal, L. and Wainwright, H., 1979, London) and humanist marxism and critical theory. Nigel Gardner (Oxford) commented that the some
what crude determinism of marxists of the Second International (1889-1914) and the rigid structuralism of Althusser had been rather too influential in shaping both the kinds of topics and form of approach favoured by marxists working in geography. 'Soft' areas like meaning, consciousness and ideology, all figuring strongly in feminist work, seemed of peripheral interest to marxists in geography. For those wishing for fundamental changes in society, the problem of 'taking power' should not produce a 'politics of deferment' according to which the needs of oppressed groups, like women, would be taken care of 'after the revolution'! Despite a crystal clear presentation, comments during and after discussion showed that a formidable gap exists in geographical teaching and research when it comes to discussing ideology and consciousness in the light of feminist and critical theory.
On returning from lunch, a structured discussion on 'Doing feminist research in geography', involving Sophia Bowlby (Reading), Linda Peake (Reading) and Pauline Wilkins, was centred round a research proposal to investigate the impact of the introduction of micro-electronic tech nology by an insurance company in the Reading area. Specific attention is to be given to male female relationships in terms of the ideology and practice of authority and patriarchy, to the links between domestic work and waged work, and to gender-class relationships. It was felt such research should not be done 'on' the workers (mostly female) concerned, but 'for' them, and there was considerable discussion as to how this might be achieved-findings made available to workers and their representatives as well as to management, informal meetings to discuss results and, most important, to discuss positive proposals for change which would improve employment opportunities for women.
John Silk University of Reading
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.20 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:06:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
