Volume 49, July 2015, Pages 31–38
To read or not to read? The politics of overlooking gender in the geographical canon
Highlights
- •
- Draws on analysis of gendered canonical debates in literature.
- •
- Highlights mechanisms of canonical exclusion.
- •
- Poses a number of questions about the politics of gendered (dis)engagement.
- •
- Makes a case for a dialogic ‘soft’ canon of high quality geographical work.
- •
- Calls for reflection on canonical processes within contemporary sub-disciplines within geography.
Abstract
Wherever
there is an established ‘canon’ within an established scholarly arena,
this is near universally dominated by texts written by men. Whilst
historical contextual reasons may account for the gendering of such
knowledge production in relation to publications dating from the
nineteenth and preceding centuries, one has to ask why this has
persisted in an era of equal access to education and academia in the
twentieth century. Why is women's work, highly influential in its day,
overlooked in subsequent histories of the discipline and therefore
marginalised in discussions of key works? These questions are
particularly pertinent to any notion of a geographical canon, given the
subject's relatively late arrival as a degree award in the UK from 1917
onwards. This paper draws on an analysis of the significance of lineage,
reviewing, reputation and genre in the contextualised production and
reception of selected work to explore the merits and demerits of a
geographical canon – and the implications for gendered geographical
knowledge. It goes on to suggest i) a more inclusive and dialogic
relational approach to understanding past and present geographical work
based on Kilcup's notion of the ‘soft canon’; ii) a broadening of the
cast and range of outputs considered ‘influential’; and iii) encourages
greater critical reflection on contemporary practices of canonization
within sub-disciplines.
Keywords
- Gender;
- Reception;
- Engagement;
- Legacy;
- Dialogue
