MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289031028 · doi:10.14288/1.0058318

’Only a Woman’: women travel writers and imperialism

2008· article· en· W2289031028 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Blunt

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistoryGender studiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My study of women travel writers and imperialism is informed by four inseparable concerns, namely the distinctive characteristics of travel writing by women; how these reflected and reproduced spatial differentiation, notably between spheres of patriarchal and imperial power and authority; how the subject positions of women travel writers were constructed in terms of difference, primarily along lines of gender, race and class, and how such constructions varied over space and time; and how women’s journeys represented only one moment in their travels and subsequent writings. These concerns are themselves informed by debates about women as a focus of historical research, western women and imperialism, and the place of women in a historiography of geography. Overall, I aim to illustrate the significance of poststructuralist feminist and literary theory in both historical geography and histories of geography. Before focussing on how women travel writers negotiated 'home' and away, private and public spheres, I outline the material and metaphorical significance of travel and travel writing, the distinctive nature of imperial literary representation, and how both travel writing and imperial representation more broadly were differentiated by constructions of gender. Rather than replicate imperial discourses of difference, I attempt to expose their ambivalence and the instability of 'home' and 'truth' as both material and metaphorical reference points. Throughout my study, I focus on the travels and writings of Mary Kingsley, who travelled in West Africa in the 1890s, wrote two books about her travels, and became a well-known figure on her return because of her support of trade and her criticisms of the British Crown Colony system. Rather than celebrate an individual, however, I discern subject-positionality in discursive terms. Three moments comprise travel and structure my account. I perceive departure to relate to constructions of gendered subjectivity both prior to and during a journey. Preparations for departure, motives, expectations, conduct books and general logistics were clearly differentiated by gender. Unstable and ambivalent constructions of gender difference informed and emerged from Mary Kingsley's travels and writings. I discuss her journey in terms of how discourses of difference varied over imperial space. Mary Kingsley was primarily constructed in terms of gender subordination while at home, but able to share in racial superiority while travelling in the context of imperialism. Finally, on her return, Mary Kingsley was once again primarily identified in terms of gender difference. However, her gendered subjectivity and mediation of public and private spheres were more ambivalent than fixed, as were the differences perceived to exist between 'home' and away. I also outline institutional responses to women travellers, with reference to debates concerning the admission of women Fellows to the Royal Geographical Society and 'new women' of the 1890s. Imperial women's travels and their writings were clearly distinctive in material ways. These ranged from preparations prior to departure, the nature of the journey, and the reception of both women and their writings on their return. A journey itself thus represents only one moment of travelling, inseparable from departure and return. Because of the gendered significance of material travel, the metaphorical immanence of travel should also be seen as clearly gendered. Implications include the inseparability of discourses of power, 'truth' and knowledge, and, more tangibly, the need to deconstruct theory, 'home' and difference.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207