FOCUS
WOMEN IN GEOGRAPHY IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Introductory Remarks: Structure, Agency, and Women Geographers
in Academia at the End of the Long Twentieth Century*
Karen Falconer Al-Hindi
University of Nebraska at Omaha
This paper provides an introduction to the set of articles presented in the focus section Women in Geography in the 21st Century. The paper argues that feminist geographers should view their professional biographies in a structure-agency context.
Such a theoretical perspective views events that are commonly thought to be unique and attributable to individual merit
or foible as the outcome instead of interactions between actors and social structures. Creating genuinely equal opportunities in geography departments for women and others who are different from the able-bodied, middle-class, white heterosexual male model of “the geographer” depends upon challenges to and transformations of the structures which bear
on the discipline, rather than solely upon individual initiative. Key Words: feminist geography, structure, agency.
Introduction
W
omen in geography today are fortunate,
aren’t they? Isn’t this an enlightened era,
in a “modern,” liberated society, in which the
combination of antidiscrimination legislation
and peoples’ own egalitarian attitudes permit
every qualified geographer entrée to the same
level playing field? Perhaps the field is even
tilted in favor of historically disadvantaged
groups; doesn’t everyone know a white, middleclass male job applicant who was told that the
position would have been his, “but we had to
hire a woman”?1 Superficially, it would seem
that the field is level. There are more women
studying geography in undergraduate and
graduate degree programs than ever, and more
women faculty than at any other time in history
(Lee 1990). Further, despite a special invitation to
department chairs to the Association of American
Geographers (AAG) session in which the essays
published here were first presented, only one attended. This lack of interest leads me to suspect
that many geographers believe that gender-based
discrimination and problems associated with
other biases have been resolved. Surely the
days of discriminating against people because
of their gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, (dis)ability status and so on are behind us?2
Yet, there is evidence that all is not well.
Twenty-five years of documenting gender inequality in the discipline (Zelinsky 1973a,
1973b; Zelinsky et al. 1982; Golledge and Halperin 1983; Mackenzie 1989; McDowell and
Peake 1990; Geography Guerrilla Girls 1996a,
1996b, 1996c) and working for change (e.g.,
Rubin 1979) shows that large numbers of
women faculty are still disadvantaged by gendered assumptions and practices that privilege
men. For example, the relatively large proportion of female students is not matched by the
number of female faculty in tenure-track jobs,
and of those in tenured or tenure-stream positions a disproportionate share are concentrated
in assistant professor slots. These quantitative
data are supported by anecdotal evidence
which confirms that subtle and pervasive discrimination against women and minorities persists. Recently, the documentation on the status
of women in geography has begun to include
personal stories or narratives (e.g., Berman
1982; Holcomb et al. 1987; Valentine 1998).
Such stories discuss the challenges faced by individuals and the strategies devised for surmounting them, and are especially illuminating
for new and prospective faculty (McDowell
1994). The emphasis in such stories is on individuals and their actions, an approach that
* Many thanks to Heidi Nast for helping to organize the panel session at which the papers in this focus section were first presented, and for her
insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I am thankful for the helpful suggestions of three anonymous reviewers and the editors as well.
Finally, I am indebted to each member of The Writing Group for her spirited writing and warm support.
Professional Geographer, 52(4) 2000, pages 697–702 © Copyright 2000 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, December 1998; revised submission, April 2000; final acceptance, May 2000.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.
698
Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000
would be characterized as “overly voluntarist”
from the theoretical perspective advanced in
this paper. I argue, instead, that feminist geographers must view their own professional biographies and those of others within a structureagency framework that explicitly recognizes the
interplay between structures that both enable
and constrain us and the possibilities for action.
Social structures such as patriarchy do not possess lives of their own; they persist because they
are institutionalized (for example, in law) and
reproduced by the innumerable thoughts, decisions, and actions of many, many actors. Despite extensive research by feminist geographers
on the interplay of human agency and structures in, for example, workplaces and organizations, this “lens” has not been turned upon the
discipline of geography itself. These introductory remarks seek to make that contribution.
Concern for current and future geography
faculty animated a discussion about the personal stories of successful women geographers
at a Geographic Perspectives on Women
(GPOW) breakfast a few years ago.3 These stories tend to highlight particularly vulnerable
moments in an academic career, such as the job
search and tenure processes, when structural
forces (e.g., racism, sexism) and individual initiatives may combine in potentially problematic ways. For example, gender stereotypes may
be drawn upon and expressed through the
speech or actions of specific individuals during
tenure and promotion deliberations at the department level (see Winkler, this volume). The
consensus at the breakfast was that, although
some of these stories have become part of an
oral tradition among a small group of feminist
geographers, their telling would benefit many
more people, including male and female faculty
and the department chairs who supervise them.
Heidi Nast and I decided to organize a panel
session for this purpose for the following AAG
meeting.
The panelists/contributors were asked to relate stories concerning representative episodes
from their careers in geography: applying for
and getting a job; the hiring process; evaluations for merit raises and reappointment on the
basis of teaching, research, and service; achieving tenure; and networking. The order of presentation (both during the panel discussion and
in this volume) thus loosely reflects the progression of a career. Each event, while often in-
terpreted as an individual challenge, also represents an intersection of multiple interests and
structural forces that combine in various ways
in different times and places. As Hanson (this
volume) notes, a temporal shift has occurred
from more to less overt expressions of sexism in
hiring, evaluation, and promotion. For example, who recommended one for a job was much
more important in the 1970s than it is today,
partly due to legal changes that have redefined
how job searches are conducted. But, as Seager
(this volume) relates, there are few controls on
a referee’s remarks in a letter of recommendation concerning a candidate’s personal or physical characteristics that are irrelevant to the job.
About 60 people attended the GPOW-sponsored session in which the essays in this volume
were first presented. The audience included
only a handful of men along with a few women
of color. The rest of the audience was composed of white women of a variety of ages and
in various stages of their careers. The presentations were often lighthearted, as the panelists
relayed what often seemed ridiculously scandalous tales of discriminatory woe. The relaxed
atmosphere, the keen interest of the audience,
and the presentation style combined to make
the question and answer period lively. Although one of the purposes of the panel was to
develop strategies for changing the status and
working conditions of women and other minority geographers as we approach the 21st
century, current challenges seemed so pressing
for so much of the audience that discussion surrounding present-day dilemmas absorbed most
of the time available. Fortunately, in the written
versions of their remarks presented here, the authors have space to recommend such strategies
both for individuals and for institutions.
“Being Bad by Being Good”
and Other Career-Path Tales
Geographers, with other social scientists, have
long grappled with the question of structure
and agency. Do social structures, such as language or gender relations, determine people’s
actions, or are people as actors free to take any
actions they wish? Many scholars today would
agree that some kind of middle position between these two extremes is most useful. That
is, structures provide a context or limit to action, while agents assess situations and act
Introductory Remarks
within the range of opportunities provided
(e.g., Dunn 1998). So, for example, language
provides a necessary means of communication
and myriad possibilities for expressing thought,
but at the same time limits expression through
its grammar and vocabulary. Similarly, gender
relations provide a framework for social interaction, encouraging some activities and discouraging others, but determining none.
Sensitivity to the interplay of structures and
agents has informed much feminist geographical research; for example, investigations of
home and workplace have shown the mutually
constitutive and reciprocal relations among
places, gender relations, and social reproduction and production (e.g., Massey and McDowell 1984; Nelson 1986; Bondi and Peake 1988;
Dyck 1990; Katz and Monk 1993; Hanson and
Pratt 1995; Falconer Al-Hindi 1997; see
Chouinard 1997 for overview). One contribution of such work is that we now know more
about the importance of gendered histories in
particular places and how these contribute to
possible actions in those places, as Pred’s (1984)
exegesis on “the time-geography of becoming
places” emphasized. Pred argued that individual biographies, the transformation of nature,
power relations, and work combine ceaselessly
to create different places on the earth’s surface.
Particularly salient to the present paper is his
emphasis on biography. While it might be said
that most individuals live unexceptional lives (that
is, they—however unintentionally—reproduce,
rather than challenge, prevailing structures)
the occasional individual does challenge or transgress conventional practice and so may initiate
remarkable transformations in specific places.
In the essays that follow, each author tells a
story that binds together structure and agency.
While each is unique, the stories share a concern with viewing individuals within a context
of gendered, racialized, and sexualized social
relations. This effort represents a genuine break
with earlier work on the “status of women in geography” (which was mainly empirical) because
of its theoretical orientation. Such a perspective enables us to understand the persistence of
sexism, racism, and other bigotry within and
through multiple processes that produce social
structures.
Patriarchy, racism, and discomfort with “difference” of all kinds are important themes in
the stories told here. Susan Hanson writes, for
699
instance, about the reproduction of gender inequality through personal networks: “women’s
social networks lead them to lower-status and
lower-paid jobs, whereas men’s personal contacts lead them to higher-status, better-paying
jobs” (p. 753). She notes that these gendered
differences are largely due to the tendency to
establish a personal network composed of
people like oneself. Since women, for example,
tend to hold lower status and poorly paid jobs,
these are the positions to which they connect
their friends. In the case of networks, the inclination to associate with people like oneself,
because of discomfort with those who are different along lines of race, class, gender, or
(dis)ability, clearly disadvantages many people.
Those seeking positions or promotion in geography are among them.
Concerning her quest for a tenure-track job,
Mona Domosh writes about how, “considerations of merit [were] clouded by personal and
social discomfort with difference” (p. 703) and
emphasizes how she and her work were perceived differently in the various places where
she held temporary teaching positions. Her research, for instance, was thought “touchy-feely
and irrelevant” at one institution, and “too theoretical” at another. That evaluations of the
same individual could range so widely highlights the importance of context and especially
place to the social conventions she was thought
to challenge.
Like Julie Winkler, Mona was frequently the
first or only female geographer in the departments where she worked. Julie was successful
in her search for a tenure track position, but
was stymied when she later sought promotion
from assistant to associate professor. She remarks that departments are home to “social
factors” that can seriously affect department
members’ careers, and that such factors should
be taken into consideration when one is looking for a job. It is clear that sexism within the
department was a crucial factor in her colleagues’ failure to vote for her promotion. Paradoxically, requirements for female and minority
representation in departments and on interdepartmental committees frequently add to the
work of these individuals, and Julie notes that
she received “extra service requests because of a
need for female representation” (p. 746). That
is, those people who are members of historically underrepresented groups on campus must
700
Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000
not only meet the highest standards for teaching and research but do so in an often isolating
environment, frequently taking on extra service responsibilities as well. The attempt to
change the social structures that exclude certain groups can result in further disadvantage
for members of those groups.
Heidi Nast writes about a similar process in
her discussion of corporate multiculturalism.
Women’s studies and ethnic studies emerged
from struggles against racism and sexism. The
people hired to teach such courses necessarily
challenge these structures, and in so doing make
students and others uncomfortable. These professors are also among the most vulnerable in
the academy, as they are instructors or assistant
professors and are often women and/or ethnic
minorities themselves. Thus, as they question social convention they necessarily challenge their
students, many of whom benefit from practices
of racism and sexism and are made personally
uncomfortable by examinations thereof. Angry
students appeal to administrators, whose job it
is to uphold the practices and structures the
multicultural faculty seek to dismantle. Heidi
reports that administrators at her university
“tacitly encouraged [her] to change [course]
reading materials” that students found objectionable, although she is expected to teach
courses that address structural inequalities and
that promote multicultural awareness. Administrators, when pressed, seem to side with the
“student as client.”
Writing from the perspective of a search
committee veteran, Joni Seager reports a widespread tendency for authors of recommendation letters to reveal prejudice in such letters
and in so doing disadvantage the women and
minority job candidates for whom they write.
Sexism, for example, can be subtle, as when a
letter for a minority woman candidate mentions her small physical size. Such irrelevant
comments reinforce notions of subordinate
status and (by implication) docility, bolstering
sexist and racist stereotypes. The tendency of
referees to mention the partners and families
of male candidates, but not those of female
ones, suggests that men are more suitable
members of the academic community when
they have families. In contrast, families are
thought to hinder rather than aid women’s careers. While mentioning a candidate’s physical
size or noting her family status reveals the letter-
writers’ own prejudices, such remarks may reinforce similar views held by hiring-committee
members, and influence their decisions. In this
way, structures of racism and sexism are supported, unfairly (and often illegally) disadvantaging female and minority applicants.
In his analysis of place and biography, Pred
argues:
. . . as biographies are formed, social and economic position become translated into specific
dominant institutional commitments, language,
and knowledge at the same time that specific
dominant institutional commitments, language,
and knowledge reinforce or transform social and
economic position. Even more essential, to speak
of place-specific constraints and enabling conditions that are based on resources, rules, and norms
is to speak of constraints and enabling conditions
that are based on geographically and historically
specific power relations between individuals,
collectivities, and institutions (1984, 286).
Biography is inextricable from the interplay of
action, structure, and place. Each author in this
focus section tells part of the job search, hiring,
promotion, and teaching “story” for women in
geography. Each author seeks to convey how
individuals choose and act within structural
constraints, and how these constraints supply
both limits and possibilities to individuals.
Agents, social structures, and places are in an
endless process of (re)making each other; the
question remaining is how to intervene in the
interplay among them so as to make departments of geography places of genuinely equal
opportunity.
Fighting “The Power” by Mobilizing
Our Own; Or, Creating Feminist
Space(s)
How can feminists and others committed to social change proceed, with a structure-agency
analysis in mind? The suggestions offered by
the authors of this focus section include pointers for individual success as well as calls for institutional progress. What can the individual
do? The papers that follow suggest building a
collegial network of diverse people (Hanson),
presenting oneself strategically during job interviews (Domosh), considering course assignments and content carefully (Nast), and
“speaking up” for oneself and others (Winkler).
Although some recommendations might ap-
Introductory Remarks
pear to suggest capitulation to the powers that
be, as Ms. Mentor reminds us, feminists must
become the powers that be if they are to do any
good (Toth 1997).
At the institutional level, Domosh asks, what
scares those in positions of authority the most:
“personal discomfort with someone who strays
too far from their expectations, or a discipline
intellectually bankrupt from its own conservatism” (p. 708)? From the essays in this focus
section it is clear that individuals who have institutional authority often support the structures that employ them, and often work against
those most in need of support. However, there
are ways to work within the structures and
alongside administrators for change. For example, Nast suggests a method of analyzing class
evaluations which has more accurately and positively assessed her teaching than the traditional method, and which has been well received by those who administer the program in
which she teaches. Winkler exhorts us to
“speak up” for others as well as for ourselves,
and clearly those with tenure and/or authority
(e.g., department chairs) are in a good position
to do this. Finally, Seager suggests that geographers as a group should discuss the role of personal information in decisions about professional
positions, and should consider including the job
search and hiring process in a code of ethics. In
sum, the structures of academic geography survive as long as individuals reproduce them and
can only change when individual practices challenge them.
The essays in this focus section represent an
important advance over earlier, largely empirical work on the status of women in geography
because each author weaves together both
sides—the structure and the agency—of her
story as she lived it, simultaneously recounting
her experiences and actions and analyzing the
structural forces arrayed (in many cases) against
her. What we learn from these stories is that
“differently abled” geographers can succeed,
but not solely because of their own brilliance,
cleverness, or other personal attributes . . . nor
despite them, either. Success comes as people
learn the system and, variously, accommodate
themselves in certain ways and/or exploit the
structure’s weaknesses to change it.
Many women geographers are the only one,
or perhaps one of two, in their geography departments. Some are even the first woman ever
701
hired by their department. I have long felt indebted to the two women geographers who
preceded me at my institution. Although neither was here more than a couple of years, each
had a significant impact on the department and
helped make it a place where I could remain
and achieve tenure. While I cannot repay my
debt to these women directly, I can— as can each
of us —through strategic participation in the
structures of the academy help to make it more
welcoming (and someday perhaps even equally
open) to the wide variety of women and men
who are geographers. j
Notes
I have heard this so many times, from so many different people, that I suspect it is an excuse offered
by embarrassed search committee chairs to disappointed applicants rather than a reflection of a
widespread trend. The latter case would be preferable, of course, but such a pattern is not reflected in,
for example, the “New Appointments” column of
the AAG Newsletter.
2 While an exclusive concern with women might be
inferred from both the title and text of this article,
my interest is much more broad and includes all
those who are “different” from the able-bodied
middle-class white male heterosexual who is the
“model” academic geographer.
3 The GPOW breakfast, in recent years organized by
Karen DeBres, is a regular event at Association of
American Geographers (AAG) meetings.
1
Literature Cited
Berman, Mildred. 1982. On being a woman in American geography: A personal perspective. Antipode
6:61–6.
Bondi, Liz, and Linda Peake. 1988. Gender and the
city: Urban politics revisited. In Women in Cities:
Gender and the Urban Environment, ed. Jo Little et
al., 21–40. London: Macmillan.
Chouinard, Vera. 1997. Structure and agency: Contested concepts in human geography. The Canadian Geographer 41(4):363–77.
Dunn, Jennifer L. 1998. Defining women: Notes toward an understanding of structure and agency in
the negotiation of sex. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography 26(4):479–510.
Dyck, Isabel. 1990. Space, time, and renegotiating
motherhood: An exploration of the domesticworkplace. Environment and Planning D: Society
and Space 8:459–83.
Falconer Al-Hindi, Karen. 1997. Feminist critical realism: A method for gender and work studies in
geography. In Thresholds in Feminist Geography, ed.
John Paul Jones III, Heidi J. Nast, and Susan M.
702
Volume 52, Number 4, November 2000
Roberts, 145–64. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Golledge, Reginald G., and William C. Halperin.
1983. On the status of women in geography. The
Professional Geographer 35:214–18.
Geography Guerrilla Girls. 1996a. Broadsheet #1:
The top 15 geography research-doctorate programs in the US. (Copy available from author.)
———. 1996b. Broadsheet #2: Geography departments with no female faculty. (Copy available
from author.)
———. 1996c. Broadsheet #3: Geography departments with only one woman on faculty. (Copy
available from author.)
Hanson, Susan, and Geraldine Pratt. 1995. Gender,
Work and Space. London: Routledge.
Holcomb, Briavel, Paul Kay, and Janice Monk. 1987.
The tenure review process. Journal of Geography in
Higher Education 11:85–98.
Katz, Cindi, and Janice Monk, eds. 1993. Full Circles:
Geographies of Women Over the Life Course. London: Routledge.
Lee, David R. 1990. The status of women in geography: Things change, things remain the same. The
Professional Geographer 42(2):202–11.
Mackenzie, Suzanne. 1989. The status of women in
Canadian geography. The Operational Geographer
7(3):2–8.
Massey, Doreen, and Linda McDowell. 1984. In Geography Matters, ed. Doreen Massey, and John Allen,
128–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDowell, Linda. 1994. Making a difference: Geography, feminism and everyday life—an interview
with Susan Hanson. Journal of Geography in Higher
Education 18(1):19–32.
McDowell, Linda, and Linda Peake. 1990. Women in
British geography revisited: Or the same old story.
Journal of Geography in Higher Education 14(1):19–30.
Nelson, K. 1986. Labor demand, labor supply, and
the suburbanization of low-wage office work. In
Production, Work, Territory: The Geographical
Anatomy of Industrial Capitalism, ed. Michael
Scott and Allan Storper, 149 – 71. Boston: Allen
and Unwin.
Pred, Allan. 1984. Place as historically contingent
process: Structuration and the time-geography of
becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74(2):279–97.
Rubin, Barbara. 1979. “Women in geography” revisited: Present status, new options. The Professional
Geographer 31(2):125–34.
Toth, Emily. 1997. Ms. Mentor’s Impeccable Advice for
Women in Academia. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvannia Press.
Valentine, Gill. 1998. “Sticks and stones may break
my bones”: A personal geography of harassment.
Antipode 30(4):305–32.
Zelinsky, Wilbur. 1973a. Women in geography: A
brief factual account. The Professional Geographer
25(2):151–65.
———. 1973b. The strange case of the missing female
geographer. The Professional Geographer 25(2):
101–5.
Zelinsky, Wilbur, Janice Monk, and Susan Hanson.
1982. Women and geography: A review and prospectus. Progress in Human Geography 6(3):317 –
66.
KAREN FALCONER AL-HINDI is an Associate
Professor of Geography and Interim Director of
Women’s Studies at the University of Nebraska at
Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182-0199. E-mail: karen_
[email protected]. Her research interests include feminist and urban geography, feminist research methods, the history and philosophy
of geography, and geography and ethics.