POL 1000 – Lecture 7: Feminism & Environmentalism

1. POL 1000 – Lecture 7: Feminism & Environmentalism Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Fall Session, 2011

2. Lecture Arc • 1. Feminism. • Concepts. • Activist waves. • Theoretical divisions. • Contemporary circumstances. • 2. Ecopolitics. • Concepts. • Origins. • Contemporary branches.

3. Introduction to Feminism • Founded on concern of asymmetrical treatment btn genders. • Empirical evidence (i.e. Sarkees) suggests women are disadvantaged socially, economically, & politically. • Are few women MPs (15% in 2005, globally). Even fewer PMs. Dominate ranks of the poor. Ect. • Project: abolish the structures that perpetuate this patriarchy (institutionalized male dominance). • ‘Sex’: the biological distinctions btn women & men. Is a matter of physiology. • Everyone agrees genders are treated differently. Not everyone agrees re biological differences. • ‘Gender’: differences in social construction, such as behaviours, values, & social roles. • Is a matter of ideas regarding how men & women should act—i.e. ‘masculinity’ vs ‘femininity.’ • Given the role of ideas in politics, conceptions of gender are seen as most vital concern.

4. Origins & Activism • Consideration of women in politics NOT bc of philosophers or ivory tower, but bc of activists in the street. • 1st women’s movement from N America & UK in mid-1800s. • Lack of property, higher education (i.e. barred from medicine & law), & voting rights (all while they were expanding for men) = clamour for political equality. • Not ‘persons’ under contemporary law. ‘1st wave’ movt sought to achieve political equality. • Protests, combined w unprecedented participation in wartime econ, peaked in WWI. • Suffrage intro’d in response (Canada 1917; UK 1918; US 1920). • 2nd wave: ‘60s saw concern w equal economic opportunities & sexual freedoms. • Argmt: govt needs to use laws (i.e. discrimination, maternity) & subsidies (i.e. child & child care) to remove obstacles to workforce participation (is pos freedom req). • Also concerned w child care & reproductive rights (i.e. birth control & abortion). • Latter often driven by courts, i.e. Roe vs Wade in US & Morgentaler in Can. • 3rd wave in ‘90s: fear demands of 2nd wave too focused on issues of white, middle class—i.e. over-emphasized ‘shared experience.’ • Third wave is both continuation & pull back from previous waves. • Movt for feminism to be more inclusive & celebratory of minority views (ie immigrants & lesbians). • I.e. battles over hijab(head covering). 2nd wave: this is oppressive tool of male elites. 3rd wave: is free expression of religious piety. • Even w intensity of internal disagreements, still agree w core precepts of feminism (concern of gender inequality). • Plus, have sought to internationalize the concern (i.e. sex trafficking).

5. Theoretical Variants • 1. Liberal feminism (i.e. Wollstonecraft, 1770; Mill 1869): is little biological difference; only outcomes matter. • Convinced of rational, self-maximizing potential of individuals, hence concerned w equality of opportunity. • Women need rights—political, education, etc. This opens up the playing field. • If provided, will achieve same degree of success as men. • Is a matter of efficiency: more women in economy & govt = more brains, more workers, & thus more wealth in society. • Black ‘11: “it is worth reflecting, generally, on what the world was missing, with a 50%-restricted talent pool, in competition for high public office, prior to about 1965. And one welcomes the day when a similar transformation occurs in those parts of the world — the Arab Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, in particular — that so far have suppressed their own Ghandis, Thatchers, Meirs and Timoshenkos.” • No need for revolution. Can reform existing political instxns. • 2. Marxist feminism (i.e. Engels 1884): rights won’t help. • Capitalism exacerbates inequality, as free markets do not value traditional female activities in house & on farm. • This work is unpaid, thus boosts profits of capitalists (get benefits w/o costs). Will therefore work to perpetuate system. • Patriarchy & capitalism are inextricably linked. • See strands in contemporary anti-globalization movement.

6. Theoretical Variants, II • 3. Radical feminism: there are serious biological differences btn men & women (i.e. Tickner, Elshtain, Peterson). • Men & women are fundamentally different. They approach the world in entirely different manners. • Men: value independence, & thus force. • Women: favour connection, & thus cooperation. •  As such, men in power = violence. Women = cooperation. • Disillusion w growing rights of the ’60s led to calls for more radical solutions. • Particularly dissatisfied w social constructions of gender. • Some (i.e. Firestone) argue traditional ‘nuclear’ family = “oppressive chains.” Others hold need to maintain, but also elevate women’s status w/in it. • Argmt: not pol or econ rights that need to change, but our social values. • Despite lack of agreement w/in the discipline, highlight how the ‘personal is the political.’ • Lesson: private lives are affected by politics too—a fact still witnessed by endless disparities btn men & women.

7. Ecopolitics • Traditional theories miss our environmental surroundings. • Are tainted by anthropocentrism (assume a human-centric view of the world). • Liberalism ignores ecological costs of economic growth. • Conservatism & Socialism ignore the state’s perpetuation of environmental exploitation. • USSR worst polluter of all the great powers. • Central problem of modernity: industrial dev = environmental decay = species extinction. • Only a non-hierarchical, ecocentric approach (w environment as primary concern, not material wealth) will temper our vitiation. • Brundtland: need to meet needs of present w/o sacrificing future (‘sustainable development’).

8. Origins • Began w 18thC conservation movt (i.e. Romanticist painters, i.e. Turner). • Urban & industrial dev = spoiling the countryside. Aristocrats looked on in horror. Developed societies to take action. • Concern was to save nature for enjoyment of future generations (i.e. Yellowstone, 1872; Banff, 1885; John Muir & Sierra Club, 1892). • Cdn National Parks Act ‘30: “The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment…and [they] shall be maintained and made use of so as to remain unimpaired for future generations. • Generally wealthy elites at forefront. • 2nd wave: Carson’s (‘62) ‘silent spring’ rings popular alarm. • Detailed detrimental effects of pesticides. • Concl: we need to regulate private activity (i.e. chemical use) • Made pollution a public concern. • Thus EPA, 1970; growth of ‘Green Parties,’ popularization of ‘3 Rs’. • A series of industrial calamities added to Carson’s warning. • Cuyahoga River fire (Cleveland, ’52 & others), Three Mile Island accident (‘79), & Sydney Tar Ponds (‘82 end of local lobster fishery). • 3rd wave: ’90s-’00s growth in developing countries = added pressure. • Need to balance right to become as rich as the North w need to avoid similar environmental trauma. • (i.e. Rio ’92, Kyoto ‘97, Copenhagen ‘10). • China burns coal, so should they stay poor? • Some suggest balance can be done. Others say not.

9. Ecopolitical Theories • 1. Liberals assume: • a) people are rational: if it costs us, we’ll stop doing it. • b) technology boosts efficiency, = can do more w less. • Pursuit of profit drives this innovation. • I.e. India’s Shree Cement: long suffered from water shortages = world’s most efficient process for making cement (partly air-cooled). China’s Broad Group: air conditioners powered by waste building heat. • Solutions: use markets & instxns. • Must ‘internalize’ all costs (best done w ‘green taxes’). • Get prices to reflect ‘true’ costs (i.e. expensive gas isn’t used frivolously). • Use intl regimes to facilitate cross-border co-op. • If all bound to common agreement, is no incentive to cheat. • Evidence: GE, Kuznet’s Curve, & Montreal Protocol. • GE: perhaps is moral component, but green = efficiency = profits. • Montreal: states committed to eliminating ozone-depleting CFC gases. • 191 signatories. • Dramatic global reductions. • Green Parties enjoy some modest success (i.e. 8.8% in Germany, 2002). • However, shortcomings abound: • Humans aren’t always rational—sometimes they just want more. • Green taxes = the rich still get to pollute. • What happens if technology fails us?

10. Ecopolitical Theories, II • 2. Radical approaches • 1. Ecofeminism (i.e. Shiva): masculinity of politics = environmental destruction. • Patriarchy = focus on power & wealth, not ecology. Thus must do away w men in power (is a gender argument). • 2. Ecoanarchism (i.e. Dobbins): modernity is unsustainable. • Industrialism irrevocably harms us. • Evidence: toll on the environment has grown exponentially over the last 200yrs. • As the ‘rise of the rest’ continues, this will only get worse. • Solutions: Most strident advocate return to preindustrial, self-sufficient, decentralized communities (maintain ecological integrity). • Must ‘remap’ regions & cultures along nature (i.e. use rivers, not roads). • Question: would we be willing? How would we achieve this? • Regardles of perspective, can agree that ecological crises do not appear without warning. • (Hopefully) we have time to change our ways.