Environment rmd Planning D: Society and Space, 1992, volumo 10, pnqoa 199-213

Other figures in other places: on feminism,

postmodernism and geography1
L Bondi
Department of Geography, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, Scotland
M Domosh
Department of Geography, Florida Atlantic University, Davie, FL 33314, USA
RoceivocJ 12 October 1990; in revised form 25 February 1991

Abstract, In a recent paper entitled "Travels in the postmodern", Elspcth Probyn uses the
metaphors of local, locale, and location to open up a political dialogue between feminism and
postmodernism, providing a particularly explicit example of a more general use of spatial
figures in contemporary theoretical debate. These spatial references arc not entirely figurative,
but allude to our positioning within particular contexts, which both frame and are constructed
by our texts. Thus, Probyn's dialogue inevitably raises geographical questions. Moreover,
geography is not merely a passive, unnamed party through which Probyn's dialogue is conducted;
it is not immune from or in any way 'outside* the situatedness its terminology is employed to
articulate. In this context, the metaphorical maps Probyn uses to find her way between the
differing terrains of feminism and postmodernism are far from neutral, truthful, transparent
representations. In this paper an extension of Probyn\s travels at the boundaries between
feminism and postmodernism is sought by introducing a more active, self-critical geographical
voice. The often hidden tensions underlying the linkages between geography, postmodernism,
and feminism arc explored, and key issues at the interface between critical human geography and
feminist deconstruction arc brought to the fore.
"The subaltern's situation is not that of an exotic to be saved. Rather, her
position is 'naturalized' and reinscribed over and over again through the practices
of locale and location. In order for her to ask questions, the ground constructed
by these practices must be rearranged .... In rearticulating the ground that is
locally built around us, we give feminist answers that show up the ideological
conditions of certain postmodernist questions."
(Probyn, 1990, pages 186-187)
Probyn's paper "Travels in the postmodern" uses the metaphors of local, locale,
and location to open up a political dialogue between feminism and postmodernism:
the idea of situating the abstract, of revealing the specificities of its location, is
central to both. And these spatial references are not entirely figurative, but allude
f

It is extremely difficult to make explicit the process of writing for a published paper.
However, as authors reluctant to accept our demise, we would like to refer briefly to aspects
of our experience of writing that bear closely on our argument. 'Time-space compression'
was certainly vital: we communicated almost instantaneously with the aid of FAX machines,
and the qualifying 'almost' had more to do with difference in clock time than spatial distance
or time elapsed. Perhaps more important, however, was the tension we experienced between
producing a more or less unified text and the appeal of a postmodern multivocality. In this
paper we have attempted to coauthor by a process of adjusting and adapting to one another's
prose. We are conscious that this might propagate negation both of the differences between
us and of our mutual uncertainties. However, we also felt that we have a standpoint in common
that merits communication in a form widely recognized as 'straightforward'. Moreover, the
very act of publishing in an established academic journal is to signal acceptance of at least
some of the norms of contemporary intellectual endeavour: we interpret our intellectual
practices as deconstructive in that we seek to criticize and perhaps (more ambitiously)
subvert from within some of the practices and habits of academic institutions.

200

L Bondi, M Domosh

to our positioning within particular contexts, which frame, and are constructed by,
our texts. Thus, Probyn's dialogue inevitably raises geographical questions: without
the homogenizing screen of universal discourse, revealed as fraudulent by both
feminism and postmodernism, we are faced with the concrete world of people and
events situated in particular times and places. But geography is not merely a
passive, unnamed party through which Probyn's dialogue is conducted; it is not
immune from or in any way 'outside' the situatedness its terminology is employed
to articulate. In recent years, both feminism and postmodernism have made explicit
some of geography's own fraudulent, universalizing claims. Thus, the androcentrism
and totalizing tendencies of most geographical narratives have been exposed if not
displaced. In this context, the metaphorical maps Probyn uses to find her way
between the differing terrains of feminism and postmodernism are far from neutral,
truthful, transparent representations.
In this essay we seek to extend Probyn's travels at the boundaries between
feminism and postmodernism by introducing a more active, self-critical geographical
voice. We begin by situating ourselves as feminists and authors, outlining our position
in relation to other feminisms. We then examine the linked deconstructive critiques
of feminism and postmodernism as they apply to dominant forms of geographical
knowledge. In the next section, we highlight the convergences between feminism
and postmodernism and position geographical discourse as an object of their joint
investigations. In the third section we submit postmodernism to feminist scrutiny,
exploring how gender permeates its discourse, including geographical contributions.
This leads to a discussion of how feminism and postmodernism differ as forms of
deconstruction. We conclude by suggesting how geography might more effectively
contribute to a feminist politics of situation and situatedness in the light of these
critiques.
1 Feminist positions
Feminism is not homogeneous within or beyond geography, and this goes some way
toward explaining its ambivalent relationship with postmodernism: some versions of
feminism are sympathetic to postmodernism, others more hostile. Rather than gloss
over these differences within feminism and imply that we can speak for feminists
'in general', we begin by sketching out our own position in relation to others.
Creed (1987) has argued that, against the radical relativism of postmodernism,
feminism must take "the risk of the essence" in its insistent political opposition to
patriarchy. However, how it does so varies widely between feminisms. Three
positions can be identified. The first in effect ignores the postmodern critique of
'enlightenment' humanism altogether and is concerned only with the exclusion or
relative absence of women from particular positions, especially those to which
power and authority accrue. This viewpoint is associated with liberal feminism,
within which 'equal rights' with men is the primary goal (for example, see Richards,
1980). We regard it as inadequate because it ignores the ways in which power and
authority are themselves infused with masculinity and therefore fails to challenge the
basis upon which gender inequalities are legitimated. Furthermore, it disregards the
oppressive, totalitarian tendencies that ensue from a position that regards all
differences between people as 'inessential'.
The second position has more in common with postmodernism in that it opposes
the universal truth claims associated with enlightenment humanism, arguing that
these depend upon an inherently masculine subject. A female subject is posited as
an alternative, which provides the basis for a feminine system of knowledge framed
by a feminine language (Daly, 1979; 1985; Griffin, 1981). This radical or cultural
feminist position implies that instead of a singular, universal knowledge, there are

Feminism, pontmodorninm mid geography

201

two types of knowledge, one masculine, one feminine* Thus, gender assumes the
form of a primordial and unambiguous division. The problem with this viewpoint
is that it ignores the difficulty and instability of gendered identities disclosed by
psychoanalysis, and the many other power-laden forms of social difference that cut
across and infuse gender relations. Moreover, as we argue below, the assumed
symmetry between 'masculine* and 'feminine* knowledges fails to deal with the
specifically singular claims of patriarchal discourse.
The third position, which we would endorse, regards gender neither as a
superficial covering under which can be found a genderless human essence (as in
liberal feminism) nor as a fundamental, unbreachable division (as in radical feminism).
Instead, it uses the insights of poststructuralism and deconstruction to interpret
gender difference as a complex and contradictory phenomenon that is both powerladen and unstable (see Scott, 1988; Wcedon, 1987). From this perspective, the
binary opposition between 'men* and 'women* is understood as a mechanism that
constructs and legitimates gender difference. It is neither inherent nor inevitable
and serves to conceal experiential differences among men and women. But being
culturally defined as a man or a woman has profound consequences for our lives,
because gender entails a hierarchical opposition in which 'woman* is defined as the
inferior 'other* of 'man'. Although we can contest both its material consequences
and symbolic representations, within patriarchy some kind of gender position is
inevitable: our challenges are always challenges emanating from within patriarchal
discourse. As well as pointing up the ideological character of gender categories,
this suggests that 'woman* is a position to be actively utilized. It is at this point
that poststructuralist feminism takes 'the risk of the essence*as a strategy rather
than as a core of identity. Like the seizure of 'black' as a political identifier
rather than a description of skin colour, feminists take 'woman* "as a location for
the construction of meaning, a place from where meaning is constructed rather
than simply the place where meaning is discovered" (Alcoff, 1988, page 434).
Postmodernists by contrast refuse to grant even this temporary privilege to the
identifier 'woman'. But, as we will show, it also refuses to acknowledge the full
effects of a male signature.
2 Deconstructing geographical knowledge
Feminists of all hues have clearly demonstrated the systematic exclusion of women
from sites at which knowledge is produced (in respect of geography, see Berman,
1977; Lee, 1990; McDowell, 1979; McDowell and Peake, 1990). In geography,
this has been accompanied by critiques concerned with the absence or inadequate
conceptualization of gender in much research. Recently, feminist theory has advanced
this kind of critique still further by examining more closely the consequences of
women's exclusion from, or marginality within, academic discourse for the
philosophical foundations of knowledge. From another direction, some postmodern
philosophers exploring the character of knowledge have begun to associate the
exclusions of dominant modes of thought, especially the enlightenment metanarratives,
with notions of femininity. In this section we point to some of the commonalities
between the two projects and sketch out a joint critique of geographical knowledge.
Grosz's (1989, page 27) overview of Derridean deconstruction provides an
excellent point of departure:
"Western metaphysics is structured in terms of binary oppositions or dichotomies.
Within this structure the opposed terms are not equally valued: one term
occupies the structurally dominant position and takes on the power of defining
its opposite or other. The dominant and subordinated terms are simply positive
and negative versions of each other, the dominant defining its other by negation.

202

L Bondi, M Domosh

Binary pairs such as good/bad, presence/absence, mind/matter, being/non-being,

identity/difference, culture/nature, signifier/signified, speech/writing and man/
woman mark virtually all the texts of philosophy, and provide a methodological
validation for knowledges in the West. The first term is given the privilege of
defining itself and of relegating to the other all that is not it. ... [Derrida] shows
that the positive term gains privilege only by disavowing its intimate dependence
on its negative double: far from identity or presence generating difference or
absence through negation, they can be seen as vitally dependent on their opposites
in ways that cannot be acknowledged. To recognise that identity depends on
difference, and that presence relies on absence is to disturb the very structure
of knowledges."
This critique of enlightenment philosophy implies that the power of universal
concepts such as truth, reason, and logic that legitimate particular forms of
knowledge is fraudulent. Such knowledge is also phallocentric: its operation is
bound up with an opposition between 'man' and 'woman' in which the former is
dominant and proclaims its own privileged singularity in opposition to the inferior,
plural 'otherness' of the latter. Although arriving there by a different route, many
feminists would concur with this account, linking phallocentrism to a gender division
of labour in which women can only contribute to the production of 'legitimate'
knowledge on conditions determined by men (for example, see Griffiths and
Whitford, 1988; Grimshaw, 1986; Harding, 1986; Harding and Hintikka, 1983;
LeDoeuff, 1977; Lloyd, 1984).
Grosz (1987) and Scott (1988), among others, have drawn out key issues at this
juncture between feminism and postmodernism through which we can outline a
critique of dominant forms of geographical knowledge. We focus on five assumptions
that are prevalent in geographical writing: that 'real' knowledge is universal, neutral,
objective, unproblematically communicable, and singularly true. With regard to the
first three, our observations are closely related to the critique of positivist geography
that has developed over the last two decades (for example, see Gregory, 1978) to
which we add a specifically feminist perspective. Our last two points are barely
anticipated by earlier critiques and illustrate the particular contribution of
deconstructive perspectives.
2.1 Transcendent visions
First, there is a widespread belief in the existence of a truth that is without context
and that exists independently of time and place. This 'scientific', 'lawlike' knowledge
is set apart from the vagaries and specificities of everyday life, and is therefore
unchanging and unchangeable. It is universal. The belief and commitment to such
a truth in geography became particularly explicit during the quantitative revolution
and is at its most evident in the current enthusiasm for geographical information
systems. Such systems promise to produce singular representations from a myriad
of interconnected variables: they aim to provide instantaneous snapshots of how all
factors defined as relevant fit together in three-dimensional, Cartesian space, to
which dynamic models add a fourth, linear, temporal dimension. This kind of
time-space grid implies the existence of an external vantage point from which
everything on earth can be uniquely fixed. It is a 'god's eye view', from which all
problems are solvable provided we possess and have sufficient computer power to
process all the appropriate data. As Cosgrove (1984) has argued, this conception
can be traced to the emergence of the 'landscape idea' in Renaissance Italy; the
idea of landscape, both as a visual scene and as a manifestation of the relationship
between people and the world they inhabit, derived from a protomodern, early
capitalist concern with measuring and appropriating space. This entailed the

i omininm, pojitmcxlwnism .ind <JCHjyraf^liy

203

distancing of a unitary self from the object of vision- -the landand thus contains
key attributes associated with enlightenment philosophy.
In its various guises, the notion of a universal form of geographical knowledge,
external to the observer, denies the partiality and positionality of all our visions.
Furthermore, the self-proclaimed legitimacy of this kind of knowledge cannot be
justified other than by reasserting its own authority. It exemplifies the intimate
connections between power and knowledge explored by Foucault (1980): its selflegitimation succeeds only because it is authorized by those with power, and in
turn, while the myth of a universal form of knowledge persists, such knowledge
adds to the authority of those in command of it.
Masculinity is embedded in this power-knowledge nexus in two ways. First, as
the ability to generate such 'true' knowledge depends upon acquiring appropriate
technical competence, access to a 'god's eye view' is the privilege of a few, to
whom considerable authority accrues. Within the current gender division of labour,
most of these knowledge-makers are men, although many are serviced by women.
Second, feminist analyses of knowledge suggest that such positions of authority arc
intrinsically masculine (even if occasionally occupied by women): man's image of
himself as an autonomous, rational subject, upon which access to an external
vantage point depends, necessitates the definition of women as 'other', and as the
repository for all 'inappropriate' human traits, such as emotion, passion, intuition,
and so on (Harding, 1986; Pateman, 1988). Moreover, the emphasis on vision as
the sense that bestows on the perceiver a unitary and apparently external position
has been interpreted as a specifically masculine obsession, the counterpart of which
is the demotion of other senses more closely associated with the 'feminine' (especially
smell) (Gallop, 1982; Irigaray, 1985).
2.2 Detached explorers
Second, there is a widespread commitment to a neutral type of knowledge, one that
is not tainted by the biases of the knower. In science this means that knowledge is
neither dependent on the scientist nor on the conditions of its production. An
experiment conducted under the same controlled conditions should yield the same
results, regardless of the person doing the work. It should be capable of independent
verification. Geography, like most other social sciences, has continually sought
such types of knowledge, privileging scientific results that could be replicated,
seeking the formulation of laws that would certify that the world's truths are
independent of the observer. Those laws, as widely varying as environmental
determinism and gravity models, share an assumption that valid and valuable
knowledge is free from any mark of its progenitors. The ideological commitments
of such discourses have, however, been forcefully exposed. In particular, feminist
geographers have shown how androcentrism pervades many supposedly 'neutral'
concepts in geography (Bowlby, et al 1986; Monk and Hanson, 1982).
Third, there is a closely related notion that the person conducting research
should work in a manner that ensures complete separation from both his or her
context and the object being studied. In other words, in order to be completely
objective, the subject or knower must be able to transcend his or her historical,
social, and personal worlds, and to remain wholly detached from the object being
studied. This mode of research is evident in the early ventures of discovery and
exploration that were crucial to the development of geography: the ability of the
explorer to remain detached from new and unfamiliar landscapes was considered
essential for the appropriation of scientific information. The pursuit of objectivity
reached new heights in positivist geography, particularly as it has shifted from an
emphasis on fieldwork (with the attendant 'risk' of personal involvement) to

204

L Bondi, M Domosh

calculations and analysis that can be conducted in the 'untainted' laboratory of

one's office.
The impossibility of 'total' objectivity is now often acknowledged, although its
maximization and the converse minimization of subjectivity is a persisting obsession
within geographical research. But this opposition betwen objectively and subjectivity
is itself deeply flawed as knowers and, in social research, those who are known,
are necessarily and interchangeably both subjects and objects who can only 'know'
anything by entering into processes through which meaning is negotiated (Sayer, 1984).
Moreover, neutrality and objectivity are widely perceived as being harder to achieve
for women than men. For practical reasons, especially responsibility for children,
many women do not have the opportunity to remove themselves from their context
in order to conduct scientific research. Certainly, exploration was a male-dominated
occupation (Stoddart, 1986). Furthermore, the experiences and aspirations of those
exceptional women who became explorers differed in important ways from those of
their male counterparts (Domosh, 1991). And research on gender differences in
contemporary Western culture suggests that relationships with others are more
important to women than to men and that women's value systems tend to be more
particularist whereas men's value systems tend to be more universalist (Gilligan,
1982). Thus again, science is not only male dominated but also associated with
what is culturally defined as masculine.
2.3 Transparent writing
Fourth, it is widely assumed that language is a medium through which knowledge
can be unproblematically represented and transmitted. Language is viewed as
transparent; its active role in shaping discourse is denied. Moreover, knowledge is
regarded as separate from language, as somehow 'prelinguistic'. Indeed, this is
intrinsic to the goal of producing true knowledge from objective research. Thus,
recent statements by the editors of major geography journals (Brunn, 1989; Hanson,
1989) continue to propagate the belief that scholarly articles are the result of
simply 'writing up' a piece of research.
Such claims are unsustainable. The work of Foucault, Derrida, and many others
demonstrates the opacity of language, the inevitable displacement of meaning, and
the materiality of discourse. Language and writing are always political: whether a
paper appears in the National Geographic or the Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, it represents the result of a struggle over meaning, and it operates as
much to persuade as to inform; indeed it can inform only by persuasion. The
desire to believe otherwise is a desire to control meaning and is bound up with the
power-knowledge nexus referred to above. Again masculinity is embedded in this
nexus. The formal language of science, supposedly bereft of ambiguity, passion,
and so on, is produced principally by men and frequently defined in opposition to
feminine linguistic forms (Cameron, 1985; Spender, 1980).
2.4 Dualistic thinking
Fifth, the prevalence of dualistic thinking in geography (Sayer, 1989) is symptomatic
of the dependence of dominant forms of geographical knowledge, and indeed all
the preceding assumptions, upon the framework of binary oppositions through
which the validity and authority of key concepts is established. As such, the entire
structure of knowledge is vulnerable to Derrida's deconstructive critique: geographical
knowledge proclaims itself to be singularly true, but in so doing depends upon its
difference from other 'false' knowledges. And, as a result of the meeting between
this critique and feminism, it becomes clear that male dominance in the production
of geographical knowledge is closely linked to the phallocentrism of its discourse.

Feminism, poatmodornmm <md fjoogniphy

206

This analysis suggests that both postmodernism and feminism share some basic
deconstructivc tendencies that call into question the foundations of geographical
knowledge. But we do not want to suggest by this a trouble-free alliance. Rather,
as we go on to show, there is a great deal of tension between feminism and postmodernism.
3 Feminism against postmodernism
At their closest, feminism and postmodernism both
"seek to distance us from and make us sceptical about beliefs concerning truth,
knowledge, power, the self, and language that are taken for granted within and
serve as legitimation for contemporary Western culture" (Flax, 1987, page 624).
But feminism is also positioned against postmodernism. In this section, we
elaborate the disjunctions between them by exploring how postmodern discourse is
itself implicitly gendered and how feminist and postmodern deconstruction differ.
3.1 On who * does' postmodernism
Almost a decade ago Owens (1983, page 61) claimed that "few women have
engaged in the modernism/postmodernism debate". Since then, with the assistance
of a publishing industry that seems to regard both feminism and postmodernism as
commercial goldmines, more texts by women have appeared (Flax, 1990; Fraser,
1989; Jardine, 1985; Morris, 1988; Nicholson, 1990; Waugh, 1989; Wilson, 1989;
to cite but a few). However, it is still the case that women are rarely positioned
prominently as authoritative figures on postmodernism: contributions inspired as
much by feminism as postmodernism often remain peripheral to, or are even excluded
from, key texts by male authors.(,) To some extent, this simply reflects the existing
gender composition of the academic work force, but such an account can be refined
upon by drawing on Owens's (1983) observation that women's art, creative writing,
filmmaking and so on, especially in their feminist versions, have been crucial to the
emergence of cultural forms that have generated theoretical and philosophical
discussions about postmodernism. Thus, it appears that women produce the 'firstorder' cultural goods upon which men sharpen their intellects in the production of
'higher-order' cultural texts. Contrary to claims that postmodernism dissolves the
boundary between low' and 'high' culture, this pattern looks like a new example
of that familiar division between female 'crafts' and male 'art' (Probyn, 1987;
Wilson, 1989).
This kind of analysis would seem to have some purchase in relation to geography.
In a male-dominated profession, writing on postmodernism has inevitably been signed
principally by men, but several contributions make reference to the importance of
the women's movement in general and/or feminist geography in particular in the
emergence of ideas associated with postmodernism (for example, Harvey, 1989;
Soja, 1989). In this way, the debate about postmodernism assimilates feminist
contributions, which become positioned as subservient because of the kudos attaching
to the theoretical novelty of postmodernism. Within geography at least, feminism
continues to be regarded as peripheral, and the relationship between postmodernism
and feminism reflects broader gender inequalities (Christopherson, 1989).
To leave the argument at this point is to do no more than repeat a now familiar
complaint about the exclusion of feminist perspectives within and beyond geography.
There are also echoes of liberal, equal opportunities initiatives, in which 'gender'
(or sometimes 'feminist credentials') is simply a classificatory device, in an elaborate
numbers game that seriously underestimates the complexity of the issues at stake.
(1)

Note for example the absence of any reference to Linda Hutcheon, Julia Kristeva, Toril Moi,
or Meaghan Morris in Scott Lash's account of the Sociology of Postmodernism (Lash, 1990).

206

L Bondi, M Domosh

Unease with such an approach prompted Morris (1988, page 12) to suggest that
"[t]he interesting question ... is not whether feminists have or have not written
about postmodernism .... [but] rather under what conditions women's work can
'figure' ... in such a debate."
This shift challenges an account that begins and ends with the gender division of
labour within academic and cultural production, and opens up questions concerned
with the construction and content of postmodernism.
3.2 On partnerships and power trips
Although acknowledging the appeal of enlightenment rationality to some versions
of feminist theory, Flax (1987) suggests that opposition to the main tenets of
enlightenment philosophy is more characteristic of feminism. As we have argued,
feminism lines up with postmodernism in the critique of claims to universal truth,
the notion of an autonomous coherent self, scientific objectivity, and so on. This
leads Flax to conceive of feminist theory as a version of postmodernism avant la
lettre, or as a prototype disclosing the androcentricity of discourses masquerading
as universal (also see Mascia-Lees et al, 1989). Sketching out elements of a mutual
critique, Fraser and Nicholson (1988) also view a harmonious partnership between
feminism and postmodernism as both possible and desirable: postmodern antifoundationalism can protect feminism against the 'plagues' of essentialism and
universalizing theory, and feminist social criticism can protect postmodernism from
political paralysis. However, although feminists may now have plenty to say about
postmodernism, the majority of men writing on the subject have remarkably little
to say about feminism. If Flax (1987) is accurate in viewing feminism as an
instigator of postmodernism then this genealogy is extraordinarily unacknowledged.
In the majority of texts on postmodernism, if feminism is mentioned at all, the
manner of its inclusion is patronising: either women writers are noted by their
absence, or the way their contributions are positioned merely reaffirms women's
subordination, or the specificity of feminist arguments is lost and the claims of
women are simply listed with those of other subordinated groups in a manner
tokenistic to all. We would suggest that the last of these best typifies the
geographical literature on postmodernism (see Bondi, 1990).
Thus, the apparent symmetry of the encounter outlined by Fraser and Nicholson
(1988) conceals some important asymmetries likely to render the proposed marriage
of feminism to postmodernism at least as unhappy as that earlier liaison between
feminism and Marxism (Hartmann, 1979). Hartsock (1987, page 196) expresses
doubts shared by many feminists:
"Somehow it seems highly suspicious that it is at this moment in history, when so
many groups are engaged in 'nationalisms' which involve redefinitions of the
marginalized Others, that doubt arises in the academy about the nature of the
'subject', about the possibilities for a general theory which can describe the
world, about historical 'progress'. Why is it, exactly at the moment when so
many of us who have been silenced begin to demand the right to name
ourselves, to act as subjects rather than objects of history, that just then the
concept of subjecthood becomes 'problematic'? Just when we are forming our
own theories about the world, uncertainty emerges about whether the world can
be adequately theorized? Just when we are talking about the changes we want,
ideas of progress and the possibility of 'meaningfully' organizing human society
become suspect? And why is it only now that critiques are made of the will to
power inherent in the effort to create theory?"
Hartsock does not interpret postmodernism as a conspiracy consciously designed to
undercut 'marginalized Others'. Nor does she defend totalizing discourses, whether

Fomtniom, postmodomiom nnci googrophy

207

advanced by dominant or subordinate groups* Rather she traces through the texts
of white, Western, middle-class, male theorists the imprint of the structural position
from which they start. Although their moves to abandon the centre for the margins
and to relinquish their previously assumed authority to speak for others are to be
welcomed, the marginalized and subordinated have occupied different positions
and must therefore make different moves. Attempts by postmodernists to define
the ground on which these others move is unacceptable and hypocritical (see also
Ricci, 1987).
Hartsock's suspicions stem from a consideration of the context within which
postmodernism is discussed, and the effect of that context on the writing and
reading of specific texts. Most importantly, she foregrounds relations of power.
From this perspective the postmodernist project, conceived by a dominant, powerful
group attempting to 'deal with* threats to their legitimacy, is simply not an appropriate
starting place for feminists attempting to challenge the power relations of gender
from a position of subordination, and to grapple with power differences (of class,
*race\ ethnicity) among women (Ramazanoglu, 1989; Spelman, 1990). The failure
of postmodernism to deal adequately with questions of power, including its own and
that of its chief advocates, alerts us to serious dangers in liaisons between feminism
and postmodernism. Given the peripheral position of feminism within geography,
together with the continuing subordination of women within its division of labour
(Lee, L990; McDowell and Pcake, 1990), caution is particularly appropriate. In
particular, we must resist moves to assimilate feminist geography within postmodernism.
3.3 Decentred but not desexed
Although Hartsock insists on interpreting postmodernism in the context of power
relations, she does not specify how gender is inscribed within postmodernism. To
do so means shifting the focus from the structural relations between collectivities to
the subjective experience of gendered identities. In the register of psychoanalytic
literary criticism, Waugh (1989) compares feminist with postmodern writing strategies
and reveals a distinctively masculine gender identity stalking the latter. She argues
that contemporary male novelists, responding to critiques of the unitary, rational,
coherent subject, display nostalgia for this unattainable humanist ideal. But women
writers, she suggests, have always lived and worked outside the charmed circle of
autonomous, centred, empowered selves because the humanist ideal was an image
of men from which women were forever excluded. Thus,
"much of women's writing can, in fact, be seen not as an attempt to define an
isolated individual ego but to discover a collective concept of subjectivity which
foregrounds the construction of identity in relationship" (Waugh, 1989, page 10).
This tracing of gender identities through creative writing does not entail an
appeal to some essential core of femininity or masculinity but acknowledges that,
in a gender-divided society, women and men are differently located in relation to
socially constructed meanings. We therefore experience, deal with, and respond to
dominant conceptions of the self in different ways.(2) For women writers, the postmodern 'discovery' that the notion of an essential, transcendent, authoritative self is
pure fantasy was not, Waugh argues, a devastating revelation: for them, such a
conception of the self had always been problematic. Consequently, postmodernism
would appear to be a specifically masculine response to the loss of what Jardine
(1985) describes as "the paternal fiction". Although concerned with representations
of 'decentred' individuals long before the term was invented, women writers, whether
feminist or not, lack the necessary nostalgia to fit the criteria of postmodernism.
<2> Because class divisions and 'racial' divisions have similar effects, women's and men's
experiences are themselves highly differentiated.

208

L Bondi, M Domosh

And, despite proclamations of the 'death of the author', neither fictional nor academic
narratives escape their progenitors so easily.
Attempts within geography to problematize writing strategies have generally
ignored the importance of power and authority. Their concern lies with the
apparent disjuncture between language and the world to which it refers; with the
inability of language to capture the ambiguity of the world it is meant to describe.
To overcome this, Olsson (1980; 1982) for example, has experimented with forms
of writing that make the problematic character of language explicit and that
endeavour to offer more evocative descriptions. But these experiments are marred
by their general incomprehensibility. Feminists find this doubly objectionable.
First, the fact that such writing is often not able to communicate to its readers
reinforces the exclusion women have so often experienced in relation to the
language of 'legitimate' knowledge (for example, see Taking Liberties Collective,
1989). Thus, such strategies only add to the mystery of authorship, sometimes
producing cult-like groups of cognoscenti able to converse in a language inaccessible
to all but themselves and able to increase their status accordingly. Second, women
are excluded not only as listeners but also as speakers. For feminism, the speaking
subject of enlightenment humanism is implicitly masculine, so that women can only
speak by in some sense denying their difference from men. Furthermore, women
have little choice but to use patriarchal discourse: if we do not our voices are
entirely ignored (our conversations are dismissed as 'gossip', 'women's talk',
'tittle-tattle', and so on). Thus, as speaking subjects women are caught in deeply
contradictory positions. Experimentation that 'plays' with language from a position
of mastery does not challenge this. Indeed, the elitism of a good deal of postmodern
discourse is clear. It may break with dominant assumptions about the centred
speaking subject but it does not divest itself of a specifically masculine authority:
it is decentred but not desexed.
3.4 Feminized but not feminist
Postmodern discourse is, of course, far from uniform, and in certain quarters a
preoccupation with gender is explicit. In a striking parallel with Harvey's (1989)
historical analysis of The Condition of Postmodemity, in which space 'figures'
prominently in the artistic and discursive representations of periods subject to timespace compression, Jardine (1985) tentatively traces historical links between periods
in Western history when women have been especially vocal, and epistemological
ruptures in which representations of women became prominent and in which " 'woman'
was put into discursive circulation in entirely new ways" (page 95). As in Harvey's
analysis, the contemporary period is just the most recent example of these periods
of transition.
Thus, Jardine draws attention to the gender symbolism embedded in postmodernism, associating but not equating it with the 'second-wave' women's
movement. Focusing on the extraordinarily influential work of French intellectuals,
she suggests that the epistemological break associated with postmodernism entails
"the transformation of woman and the feminine into verbs at the interior of those
narratives that are today experiencing a crisis of legitimation ... the putting into
discourse of 'woman' as that process diagnosed in France as intrinsic to the
condition of modernity [read postmodernism]; indeed the valorization of the
feminine, women, and her obligatory, that is, historical connotations, as somehow
intrinsic to new and necessary modes of thinking, writing, speaking" (page 25).
For Lacan, the unconscious is 'woman'; for Derrida, to write without violence is
to write as 'woman'. This embracing of 'woman' is expressive of a recognition that
the dominant discourses of philosophy and science are phallocentric and that their

Feminism, postmodernism wid yoogrnphy

209

legitimacy is bound up with masculinity. Thus, writers who seek to subvert the
conventions of enlightenment thinking look to femininity as a source of alternatives.
This is not always explicit and, indeed, postmodern geographers do not appear to
be concerned with the Rendering' of discourse. However, they draw strongly if
indirectly on sources within which 'gynesis' is prominent.
These moves suggest that feminist critiques of the androcentricity of knowledge
have been largely accepted, and, in admitting that knowledg is deeply gendered,
open up possibilities for 'feminine' perspectives. However, there arc profound
difficulties here because it is not always clear within postmodern discourse whether
'the feminine' has anything to do with 'flesh and blood' women. When it does, as
in Baudrillard's Of Seduction, antifeminism is all too apparent (Gallop, 1987; Moore,
1988). More generally, this eagerness to enter into (penetrate?) the feminine' makes
sense only from a position embodied and empowered as masculine, We who are
women have no need to recover the feminine but, rather, wish to transform it:
"the whole direction of recent feminist thought has been increasingly to intervene
and try to change symbols, to engage in struggle within the symbolic, and precisely
to understand how our bodies and our images arc used in a network of social
meanings1' (Williamson, 1987, page 25).
In this context, claims to "become woman without a female body" (Flax, 1990,
page 215) constitute a form of 'gender tourism', which has the effect of re-forming
rather than dissolving phalloccntrism (Moore, 1988). This 'gender tourism' positions
women as the 'other', the 'exotic'to be put under scrutiny, fully understood, and
thereby appropriated. A parallel between this form of tourism, and the exploratory
zeal of much of geography's colonial past, is clear. The 'other', whether it be a
'native' of an exotic island or a woman, is strongly enticing, difficult to understand,
yet somehow offering new possibilities. Just as the 'discovery' of cultures outside the
Western norm was integral to the enlightenment thinkers, so the sudden 'discovery' of
the feminine is becoming integral to postmodern discourse. The gender symbolism
of postmodernism must, therefore, heighten feminist wariness.
In its gender division of labour, in its relationship to masculine gender identity,
and in its use of gender symbolism, postmodernism clearly cannot be understood
as feminist discourse. Whatever their parallels and overlaps, the two projects do
not coincide and cannot merge. Rather, we would concur with Hutcheon (1989)
who suggests that both feminism and postmodernism "are part of the same general
crisis of cultural authority ... as well as part of a more specific challenge to the
notion of representation" (page 142); both seek to subvert the "conventions and
ideologies of the dominant cultural and social forces of the twentieth century
Western world" (page 11), and in their deconstructive critiques both are inevitably
complicit, in that "you have to signaland thereby installthat which you want to
subvert" (page 152). Further, neither has or offers a "privileged, unproblematic
position from which to speak" (page 153) and, at least in certain forms, both
foreground the consequent difficulties. But feminism and postmodernism conceive
of their own positions in different ways and therefore generate different versions of
deconstruction.
3.5 Differing with deconstruction
In terms of knowledge claims and issues of authority, a poststructuralist version of
feminism is both more and less deconstructive than postmodernism. It is more
deconstructive in that its skepticism takes a personal turn. There are two aspects
to this. First, it moves on from the general postmodern questioning of universal
claims to knowledge that emphasizes the broad historical and social contingency of
knowledge creation, to insist on its more specifically personal, gendered nature.

210

L Bondi, M Domosh

This personal turn can be discomforting for postmodern practitioners because it

calls into question their own authority in making claims, and as we have shown
turns the analysis inward to unmask its own masculine bias. Second, both feminism
and postmodernism call into question the authority of dominant groups, but different
relations of domination are emphasized. Postmodernism often avoids specifying to
which forms of domination it refers; when it does, the 'others' that have been
silenced by fraudulent claims to universality are generally groups outside the
economic hegemony of Western discourse. By contrast, feminism emphasizes the
domination of men over women. As women, feminists (including ourselves) speak
from the position of 'other' and insist that the 'others' that have been silenced exist
within the dominant Western culture as well as beyond it. This again calls for an
inward, self-reflexive turn that is discomforting for postmodernists.
Feminism, on the other hand, is, in at least two ways, less deconstructive than
postmodernism. First, the deconstruction of truth claims and the recognition that
they are always contingent removes all the mechanisms we have previously used to
decide between differing statements or to defend particular claims. Power, particularly
in its rhetorical forms, becomes the sole determining factor. This is a frightening,
potentially suicidal, prospect for groups such as women, who speak from positions
of subordination: it is one thing to relinquish authority, which is the legitimacy of
power, from a position of domination; it is quite another to accede that because
no power can be legitimated all struggles against domination are misguided (compare
Hartsock, 1987). Second, and related to this, a relentless deconstruction of all
attempts to secure authority from knowledge and to use the power-knowledge
nexus reproduces the exclusion of feminists and other peripheral voices. Precisely
because women lack authority, feminists have used the claims to universality of
enlighteniment rationality to challenge this exclusion. It is only by this kind of
complicity that 'others' can begin to assert themselves, resist subordination, and
develop political agendas. By deconstructing their own authority, white Western
men may expose the illegitimacy of their power but they do not give it up. For
feminists to relinquish all claims to authority means losing any basis upon which
to wrest power from men.
4 Beginnings
In the preceding sections of this paper aspects of the positionality of feminism,
geography, and postmodernism have been explored. Writing as feminist geographers
sympathetic to poststructuralism, we have shown how feminisms variously position
gender and knowledge in relation to one another (section 1); we have shown how
dominant forms of geographical knowledge claim to transcend specific positions,
but are actually allied to the privileged position of white, Western, masculinity
(section 2); and we have shown how, despite its critique of universal truth claims
and of phallocentrism, there is a major impulse within postmodernism that continues
a tradition of masculine discourse in which the stereotyping of women is intrinsic
to its operation (section 3).
Thus, despite its trenchant critique of dominant forms of knowledge, postmodernism (including postmodern geography) would appear to have little to offer
feminist politics. However, the use of spatial references to articulate arguments
between feminism and postmodernism (evident both in our sources and in our own
text), is neither accidental nor unproblematic. A central task for geography must
therefore surely be to explore and contextualize the literal and metaphorical spatiality
of contemporary discourse. Soja (1989) makes a move in this direction, but he
largely ignores the figurative dimension, which leads him, despite his expressed

Feminism, postmodernism oncl fjoogrftphy

211

intentions, to underplay the significance and subtleties of social constructions of

space (on which, see Harvey, 1990). As a consequence of this, his excitement over
an apparent "reassertion of space in critical social theory" is at risk of encouraging
a new bout of spatial fetishism in which \spatiality* becomes more significant than
the social relations constituted in and constitutive of the contexts of our lives. Soja
himself effectively reproduces an all too familiar anclrocentrism in his neglect of
feminist perspectives (Bondi, 1992). A more sensitive treatment of spatiality would
lead to a more careful consideration of the positionality of different voices.
In this paper, we have suggested that there is a tendency within postmodernism
to indulge in a kind of 'tourism', manifest in references to 'woman' and the 'feminine*;
we have raised objections to what we see as an appropriation of women's voices
and experiences by white, male theorists. But, as Haraway (1990, page 243) points
out, there is a
"very fine line between the appropriation of another's (never innocent) experience
and the delicate construction of the just-barely-possible affinities, the just-barelypossible connections that might actually make a difference in local and global
histories"
This project of constructing affinities and connections remains an as yet latent
possibility within postmodern geography. Its realization means admitting the duplicity
and ambivalence of our endeavours* This is well illustrated in the exploratory
heritage of the discipline, which entailed an appropriation of the 'exotic' worlds of
others, not dissimilar from the 'gender tourism' of postmodern discourse. But,
although exploratory zeal was devastating for those discovered' in their 'exotic'
lands, and although most of those empowered by such a process were already
unambiguously privileged, there were also women explorers for whom the experience
of travelling was the most exhilarating and empowering of their otherwise tightly
constrained lives (Domosh, 1992). In addition, explorers often became enchanted
by the 'exotic', and their personal worlds were altered as much as or perhaps even
more than, the lives and lands through which they passed. So even the exploitative
appropriation of European exploration was not without possibilities for developing
other kinds of connections.
Our intellectual journeys, too, are uncertain and ambivalent: although the inequalities
of existing social relations are often intensified, there are always possibilities for
reorderings of a different character. If a postmodern geography can assist and
participate in that type of change, it is to be welcomed. So we offer this 'travail'
(labour-journey) not only in resistance to the attempted assimilation of feminism
within postmodern geography but also to argue for a different kind of geographical
engagement, which will assist in the project of rearranging the ground on which the
subaltern is 'naturalized' (Probyn, 1990, page 186) thereby allowing her both to
speak and to be heard.
Acknowledgement. We would like to express our gratitude to the very efficient FAX machines
on both sides of the Atlantic, and of the American continent, and to those people who graciously
offered us use of those machines, particularly Curt Roseman and the Geography Department
at University of Southern California and Ron Schultz at Florida Atlantic University.
References
Alcoff L, 1988, "Cultural feminism versus poststructuralism: the identity crisis in feminist
theory" Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 13 4 0 5 - 4 3 6
Berman M, 1977, "Facts and attitudes on discrimination as perceived by AAG members:
survey results" Professional Geographer 29 7 0 - 7 7
Bondi L, 1990, "Feminism, postmodernism and geography: space for women?" Antipode 22
156-167

212

L Bondi, M Domosh

Bondi I, 1992, "On gender tourism in the space age: a feminist response to Postmodern
Geographies" Antipode 16 9 5 - 1 0 4
Bowlby S, Foord J, McDowell L, 1986, "The place of gender in locality studies" Area 18
327-331
Brunn S, 1989, "The manuscript review process and advice to prospective authors"
Professional Geographer 40 8 - 1 4
Cameron D, 1985 Feminism and Linguistic Theory (Macmillan, London)
Christopherson S, 1989, "On being outside 'the project'" Antipode 21 8 3 - 8 9
Cosgrove D, 1984 Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape (Croom Helm, Andover, Hants)
Creed B, 1987, "From here to modernity: feminism and postmodernism" Screen 28(2) 4 7 - 6 7
Daly M, 1979 Gyn/Ecology (The Women's Press, London)
Daly M, 1985 Beyond God the Father (Paladin Books, St Albans, Herts)
Domosh M, 1991, "Toward a feminist historiography of geography" Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers 16 9 5 - 1 0 4
Flax J, 1987, "Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory" Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society 12 6 2 1 - 6 4 3
Flax J, 1990 Thinking Fragments (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
Foucault M, 1980 Power/Knowledge (Harvester Press, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
Fraser N, 1989 Unruly Practices (Polity Press, Cambridge)
Fraser N, Nicholson L, 1988, "Social criticism without philosophy: an encounter between
feminism and postmodernism" Theory, Culture and Society 5 3 7 3 - 3 9 4
Gallop J, 1982 The Daughter's Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis (Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY)
Gallop J, 1987, "French theory and the seduction of feminism", in Men in Feminism
Eds A Jardine, P Smith (Methuen, Andover, Hants) pp 111-115
Gilligan C, 1982 In a Different Voice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
Gregory D, 1978 Ideology, Science and Human Geography (Hutchinson Education, London)
Griffin S, 1981 Women and Nature (Harper and Row, New York)
Griffiths M, Whitford M, 1988 Feminist Perspectives in Philosophy (Macmillan, London)
Grimshaw J, 1986 Feminist Philosophers: Women's Perspectives on Philosophical Traditions
(Wheatsheaf Press, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
Grosz E, 1987, "Feminist theory and the challenge to knowledges" Women's Studies
International Forum 10 475-480
Grosz E, 1989 Sexual Subversions (Allen and Unwin, Sydney)
Hanson S, 1989, "Soaring" Professional Geographer 40 4 - 7
Haraway D, 1990, "Reading Buchi Emeta: contests for women's experience in Women's
Studies" Women: A Cultural Review 1 240-255
Harding S, 1986 The Science Question in Feminism (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY)
Harding S, Hintikka M B (Eds), 1983 Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Philosophical
Traditions (D Reidel, Dordrecht)
Hartmann H, 1979, "The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism" Capital and Class 8
1-33
Hartsock N, 1987, "Rethinking modernism: minority vs. majority theories" Cultural Critique 1
187-206
Harvey D, 1989 The Condition of Postmodernity (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
Harvey D, 1990, "Between space and time: reflections on the geographical imagination"
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 80 4 1 8 - 4 3 4
Hutcheon L, 1989 The Politics of Postmodernism (Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Andover,
Hants)
Irigary L, 1985 Speculum, Of the Other Woman (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY)
Jardine A, 1985 Gynesis. Configurations of Women and Modernity (Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, NY)
LashS, 1990 Sociology of Postmodernism (Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Andover, Hants)
Le Doeuff M, 1977, "Women and philosophy" Radical Philosophy 17 2 - 1 1
Lee D R, 1990, "The status of women in geography: things change, things remain the same"
Professional Geographer 42 202-211
Lloyd G, 1984 The Man of Reason: 'Male' and 'Female' in Western Philosophy (Methuen,
Andover, Hants)
McDowell L, 1979, "Women in British Geography" Area 11 151-154
McDowell L, Peake L J, 1990, "Women in British geography revisited: or the same old story"
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 14 1 9 - 3 0

Fominism, poatmodorninm md qoonrnphy

213

Mascia-Lccs F E, Sharpe P, Cohen B C, 1989, "The postmodernist turn in anthropology:

cautions from a feminist perspective" Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 15
1-29
Monk J, Hanson S, 1982, "On not excluding half of the human in human geography"
Professional Geographer 34 1! -23
Moore S, 1988, "Getting a bit of the otherthe pimps of postmodernism", in Male Order
Eds R Chapman, J Rutherford (Lawrence and Wishart, London) pp 165- 192
Morris M, 1988 The Pirates Fiancee (Verso, London)
Nicholson L (Ed.). 1990 Feminism/Postmodernism (Routledge, Chapman and Mall, Andover,
Hants)
Olsson G, 1980 Birds in Egg-Eggs in Bird (Pion, London)
Olsson G, 1982, " - / - " , in A Search for Common Ground Eds PGould, G Olsson (Pion,
London) pp 223-231
Owens C, 1983, "The discourse of others: feminists and postmodernism", in Postmodern
Culture Eel. H Foster (Pluto Press, London) pp 57-82
Pateman G, 1988 The Sexual Contract (Polity Press, Cambridge)
Probyn E, 1987, "Bodies and anti-bodies; feminism and the postmodern" Cultural Studies 1
349-360
Probyn E, 1990, 'Travels in the postmodern: making sense of the local", in Feminism/
Postmodernism Ed. L Nicholson (Routledge, Chapman and Hall, New York) pp 176-189
Ramazanoglu C, 1989 Feminism and the Contradictions of Oppression (Routledge, Chapman and
Hall, London)
Ricci N P, 1987, "The end/s of woman" Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory 11
11-27
Richards J R, 1980 The Sceptical Feminist (Penguin Books, Harmonclsworth, Midclx)
Sayer A, 1984 Method in Social Science (Hutchinson Education, London)
Sayer A, 1989, "Dualistic thinking and rhetoric in geography" Area 21 301-305
Scott J W, 1988, "Deconstructing equality-versus-ciifference: or, the uses of post-structuralist
theory for feminism" Feminist Studies 14 35-50
Soja E, 1989 Postmodern Geographies (Verso, London)
Spclman E, 1990 Inessential Women (The Women's Press, London)
Spender D, 1980 Man Made Language (Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Anclover, Hants)
Stoddart D R, 1986 On Geography (Basil Blackwcll, Oxford)
Taking Liberties Collective, 1989 Learning the Hard Way (Macmillan, London)
Waugh P, 1989 Feminine Fictions (Routlcdge, Chapman and Hall, Andover, Hants)
Wecdon C, 1987 Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory (Basil Blackwell, Oxford)
Williamson J, 1987 Consuming Passions (Marion Boyars, London)
Wilson E, 1989 Hallucinations. Life in the Postmodern City (Radius, London)