Most theorists understand gender geographies as highly differentiated and shifting, in terms of both time and space. If gender is historically and geographically contingent then the analysis of gender should be attentive to the particular conditions that materialize the very idea of gender, giving it the appearance of being fixed and natural. The physical landscape, or waterscape in the case of southeastern Turkey, is potentially central to the ways that gender is invoked and lived in particular settings, with important effects. Using case-study work on irrigation-related changes in southeastern Turkey, I consider gender in relation to livelihoods and work practices, landholdings, and ethnicity revealing that, in addition to conditioning differential outcomes for residents of the plain, these categories of social difference are themselves fundamentally renegotiated and recast in relation to waterscape change. I argue that explicit consideration of environmental conditions and practices is central to understanding the operation of gender in certain contexts, as well as to understanding the lived experiences of women and men, providing insights for gender theory and politics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgarwalB, 1986, “Women, poverty, and agricultural growth in India”Journal of Peasant Studies13 (4) 165–220.
2.
AgarwalB, 1988, “Neither sustenance nor sustainability”, in Structures of Patriarchy: State, Community, and Household in Modernising Asia Ed. AgarwalB (Kali for Women, New Delhi) pp 83–120.
3.
AgarwalB, 1994A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
4.
AgarwalB, 2001, “Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework”World Development291623–1648.
5.
AhmedS, 1999, “Changing gender roles in irrigation management: Sadguru's lift irrigation cooperatives”Economic and Political Weekly343596–3607.
6.
AratZ, 1999Deconstructing Images of the Turkish Woman (Palgrave, Hants).
7.
BasnetK, 1992Beyond the Chadar and the Chardiwari: Women in the Irrigated Areas of Punjab (IIMI, Lahore).
8.
ButlerJ, 1993Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ (Routledge, New York).
9.
ÇarkoğluAEderM, 1998, “The Southeast Anatolia Development Project: Part 2”cidc Insight: Turkey August, 113–120.
10.
CarneyJ, 1993, “Struggles over crop rights and labour within contract farming households in a Gambian irrigated rice project”Journal of Peasant Studies15329–348.
11.
CarneyJ, 1996, “Converting the wetlands, engendering the environment: The intersection of gender with agrarian change in the Gambia”Liberation Ecologies Eds PeetRWattsM (Routledge, London) pp 165–187.
12.
CarneyJWattsM, 1991, “Disciplining women? Rice, mechanization and the evolution of Mandinka gender relations in Senegambia”Signs16651–681.
13.
DeereC DLeonM (Eds), 1987Rural Women and State Policy: Feminist Perspectives on Latin American Agricultural Development (Westview Press, Boulder, CO).
14.
DelaneyC, 1991The Seed and the Soil: Gender and Cosmology in Turkish Village Society (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
15.
DoğanayF, 1997Sosyal ve Kultur el Donuşme Sureçinde Harran Ovasi ve GAP Uygulamasi [Harran Plain in the process of social and cultural changes and the implementation of GAP], March (Sosyal Secktorler ve Koordinasyon Genel Mudurlugu [Gender Manager for Social Sectoral Coordination], Adana).
16.
DurakbaşaACindoğluD, 2002, “Encounters at the counter: Gender and the shopping experience”, in Fragments of Culture: The Everyday of Modern Turkey Eds KandiyotiDSaktanberA (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 73–89.
17.
ErtürkY1995, “Rural women and modernization in southeastern Anatolia”, in Women in Modern Turkish Society Ed. TekeliS (Zed Books, London) pp 141–152.
18.
GuptaA, 1998Postcolonial Developments: Agriculture in the Making of Modern India (Duke University Press, Durham, NC).
19.
HarrisL, 2002, “Water and conflict geographies of the Southeastern Anatolia Project”Society and Natural Resources15743–759.
20.
HarrisL, 2005, “Negotiating inequalities: Democracy, gender, and politics of difference in water user groups of Southeastern Turkey”, in Environmentalism in Turkey: Between Democracy and Development? Eds AdamanFArselM (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 185–200.
21.
HarrisLAtalanN, 2004, “Developing women's spaces: Evaluation of the importance of sex segregated spaces for gender and development goals in southeastern Turkey”Kadn/Woman 20003 (2) 17–46.
22.
HarrisLKaraKarahan Z, 2001, “Survey of 125 rural households conducted in 11 villages of the Harran Plain, November 2001”, available from the author.
23.
KabeerN, 1994Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought (Verso, London).
24.
KandiyotiD, 1988, “Bargaining with patriarchy”Gender and Society2274–290.
25.
KandiyotiD, 1990, “Women and rural development policies: The changing agenda”Development and Change21 (1) 5–22.
26.
KandiyotiD, 1991Women, Islam, and the State (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA).
27.
KandiyotiDSaktanberA, 2002Fragments of Culture: The Everyday of Modern Turkey (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ).
28.
KatzC, 1991, “Sow what you know: The struggle for social reproduction in rural Sudan”Annals of the Association of American Geographers81488–514.
29.
KatzC, 1998, “Whose nature, whose culture?: Private productions of space and the ‘preservation’ of nature”, in Remaking Reality: Nature at the Millenium Eds BraunBCastreeN (Routledge, London) pp 46–63.
30.
MoeckliJBraunB, 2001, “Gendered natures: Feminism, politics, and social nature”, in Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics Eds BraunBCastreeN (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 112–132.
31.
MooreD, 1996, “Marxism, culture, and political ecology: Environmental struggles in Zimbabwe's eastern Highlands”, in Liberation Ecologies Eds PeetRWattsM (Routledge, London) pp 125–147.
32.
NashC, 2000, “Performativity in practice: Some recent work in cultural geography”Progress in Human Geography24653–664.
33.
ÖzyeğinG, 2001Untidy Gender: Domestic Service in Turkey (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA).
34.
ÖzyeğinG, 2002, “The doorkeeper, the maid, and the tenant: Troubling encounters in the Turkish urban landscape”, in Fragments of Culture: The Everyday of Modern Turkey Eds KandiyoliDSaktanberA (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ) pp 43–72.
35.
Pangare1998Gender Issues in Watershed Development and Management in India Agricultural Research and Extension Network, Overseas Development Institute, London.
36.
RaynoldsL, 1991, “Women and agriculture in the Third World: A review and critique”, in Towards a New Political Economy of Agriculture Eds FriedlandW HBuschLButtelF HRudyA P (Westview Press, Boulder, CO) pp 339–363.
37.
RocheleauDThomas-SlayterBWangariE, 1996Feminist Political Ecology: Global Issues and Local Experiences (Routledge, New York).
38.
SchroederR, 1999Shady Practices: Agroforestry Gender Politics in the Gambia (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).
39.
SecorA, 2003, “Belaboring gender: The spatial practice of work and the politics of ‘making do’ in Istanbul”Environment and Planning A352209–2227.
40.
ThomasM, 2004, “Pleasure and propriety: Teen girls and the practice of straight space”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space22773–789.
