Feminism and GIS: Another Look at the Struggle in Feminist Geography

The question of is it geographic information systems or geographic information science is critiqued in all disciplines of geography. Feminist geography is no different. The debate in this field is complex. The question asked by feminist geography, for this paper is, is GIS a masculine technology or not. This question derives from the very core of feminism: the image of master subject. This idea being, in a crude sense, one being in control of another, more specifically men objectifying women. “For example, Donna Haraway (1991) and Liz Bondi & Mona Demosh (1992) were drawn upon to criticize GIS for the objectifying way of knowing and the transcendent vision - or the "god"s eye view' - it enables (e.g. Lake, 1993; Goss, 1995). (Kwan, 2002) (GIS is a powerful tool capable of presenting information that can be, and could be, seen by a feminist, or feminist geographer, as a type of technology used for the objectifying of unknown subjects, and in a sense, it is. With that stated, GIS is controversial only because of its ability to benefit that which feminism fights against. “Accounts of GIS from the early 1990s were polemical and often negative, while those published later in the decade, when GIS was better ensconced, tended to be more conciliatory.” (Schuerman, Pratt, 2002)

In recent years more and more feminist geographers are arguing that GIS is not a masculine based technology. “People see information differently, pose different questions, and arrive at different conclusions.” (McLafferty, 2005) She also states, “. . . the technologies are themselves positioned in webs of social and economic relations that affect how the technologies develop and how, where, and by whom they are used.” (McLafferty, 2005) There is a use for GIS in feminist geography that gives the system a nonmasculine approach to research done by a discipline that does not dehumanize the subject and therefore keeps the privacy and dignity of the subject intact. This is not to say a practice in another area of geography does this. It is only a statement reform to feminist geography and its critique and struggle with GIS. “It is important for feminist geographers to participate in the development of subversive strategies that disrupt the dualist understanding of geographical methods and destabilize dominant and/or masculinist GIS practices.” (Kwan, 2002) Stacy Warren did just that when she visited a local church to see how GIS interacts with the real world.

To her surprise, or personal dismay, she found GIS to be less of a monster than she had previously believed it to be. With local government offices using more than one version of GIS software, it became increasingly understood that these individual databases gases did not talk to each other. They simply provided some information. What the user did with that information became a more difficult task to understand only because combining the information is difficult to do, if it can be done at all. “Since ArcView ignored people whose addresses did not conform to the expected standard (such as those who live on roads not maintained by public dollars, or who identify themselves only by post office box), they were left out of the resulting database.” (Warren, 2004) This is a limitation of GIS and could be viewed as a sort of “safety net” for privacy as well as a more “focused” study. For feminist geography, this could make GIS a less positivist research tool and more structured or tailored for the questions being answered in their research. Thus, less masculine and just “limited.” “. . . feminist geographers do not hold particular research methods as distinctively feminist. Instead, they emphasize the need to choose research methods that are appropriate for the research questions and data” (Kaian, 2002) This is the opposite of the idea first presented in this paper that GIS is masculine technology.

By using GIS as a research tool and adopting the technology for use in feminist geography it makes the technology not masculine, not even neutral, but a tool and nothing more. It is just as easy to gather information about a group of people and write a paper on your findings as it is to create a “visualization” of those same findings. One method uses a library full of books while the other uses a software with menus. “Critics have judged the processes and outcomes of GIS as problematic without grounding their criticism in the practices of the technology.” (Schuerman, Pratt, 2002) Arguing that GIS is a social enemy is best done when you understand GIS and its limitations. I submit that GIS is in fact not masculine technology, but a technology of its own. It is a branch, be it a modern one, of cartography, and poses no serious threat to society.

Feminist geography would and does benefit from the use of GIS as a tool and is being accepted more and more. Feminist geography deals with objectivity with a very serious approach. Pre-GIS this objectivity was limited to photos and television, with the addiction of satellite images, remote sensing, real time videos, the master subject idea has intensified in this discipline. The critique of GIS use in feminist geography is unsure by far, not yet completed. But by having the support of feminist geographers as of the date of this paper, GIS is standing more and more on its own as a technology and not so much as a source of objectivity for master subject. By using feminist geography as a discipline difficult to change, and in answer to the question is GIS a system or science, this paper suggests GIS is a system. Not masculine technology and not neutral. It is a modern form of a light table and mylar paper. No more, no less.