Student questions and discussion points for Sept 19 class meeting
In the second article – Chapter 4 in Moss & Falconer Al-Hindi – the author Kim England discusses the ways in which her research on domestic care workers in Toronto could be categorized as ‘local’ or ‘localized’: first, both herself and her fellow researcher Bernadette lived in the city in which they were performing their research. Second, the experiences they were documenting were highly localized to live-in care workers in Toronto only. And third, under the current hegemonic definitions of ‘local’ versus ‘global’, her research could be defined as localized. However England offers strong counter arguments to each of these points. What are her counter arguments and how does she urge her readers to reconsider the politics of defining the ‘local’ in relation to the ‘global’? Can you think of any examples of how ‘local’ situations, relations or experiences in Vancouver could extend beyond our city and affect the ‘global’?
Focusing specifically on the Gokariksel Article, I was wondering if the terms “secular” and “democratic” are the same or if they are interchangeable? As well, I’m not to clear on what the term “Post-Islamic” is and what its relevance to feminist geography is in this paper.