Maternities in ‘out‐of‐the‐way’ places: epistemological possibilities for retheorising population geography

Abstract

This paper argues that theories of embodiment have particular epistemological importance in the way population geography analyses fertility. This is because such theories remind us that knowledge is produced by sexually embodied subjects in particular places and times. The paper discusses the epistemological importance of interrogating the unproblematic view of embodiment, and of motherhood as a natural given in population geography. It reviews how the body as a natural given has been interrogated within geography as a discipline, then focuses on the speci®c contributions of two critical feminist social theorists. This radically expands the otherwise narrow view that fertility patterns in different places and times are currently known. Although in its early stages of articulation, rethinking fertility in this way dovetails with recent work in other subdisciplines in geography such as the debates over the question of nature. In this way population geographers can make critical contributions to wider debates in geography and the social sciences in general.

Feminist geographies in Aotearoa New Zealand: cultural, social and political moments

“…Different bodies are recognised as being enmeshed in different power relations and much of our research seeks to untangle these (Johnston and Longhurst 2010;Longhurst and Johnston 2014). A number of examples come to mind: Yvonne Underhill-Sem (2001, 2003; Underhill-Sem and Sem 2015) draws attention to marked bodies in marginalised places outside Aotearoa and in the process extends the boundaries 6 of feminist geography into the Pacific (see also Burry and Stupples 2017, on sex work as body work, body work and agency in Vanuatu). Kelly Dombroski (2011, 2016bDombroski McKinnon and Healy 2016;Dombroski et al 2018) investigates the intersection between feminist geographies of the body, community economies, and diverse practices of care, mothering, birthing and activism.…”

Baby bust

“…In population geography, we find increasingly nuanced views of power and politics used to study health disparity, migration (Silvey, 2004, 2006) and mortality, but rarely fertility (with notable exceptions, such as Underhill-Sem, 2001). In 2004, a special edition of Population, Space, and Place (Graham, 2004; Pandit, 2004; Silvey, 2004) echoed and advanced discussions in demography that began in the 1990s (e.g.…”

“…Even so, more than 10 years after Boyle (2003) noted the importance of fertility decline to the subdiscipline, close survey reveals limited attention to the topic, with a few notable exceptions (Catney and Simpson, 2014; Sahu et al, 2012; Vignoli et al, 2013; Wesolowski, 2015, largely focused on how declining fertility impacts migration (Findlay and Wahba, 2013; Smith and King, 2012), explanation of fertility differences (Coleman, 2002; Lechner, 2001), and the meanings of maternal mortality (Underhill-Sem, 2001).…”

Beyond otherness: exploring diverse spatialities and mobilities of childhood and youth populations

“…At the same time as focusing upon new scales of mobility, the papers in this special edition open up new spatialities, which have been underexplored by population geographers, such as bodies, homes, school, and local (rural) spaces. All of the papers in the special edition draw upon qualitative methodology, addressing calls for population geography to engage more fully with a broader range of approaches (Graham and Boyle, 2001; Underhill‐Sem, 2001; Graham, 2004; Mulder, 2007). The qualitative approach taken in these papers allows an exploration of cultural considerations, which have been relatively under‐represented in population geography; issues such as feelings of belonging or conflict within the home (Evans) the rural community (Leyshon) and the discordant and multiple meanings attached to places (Leyshon and Evans).…”