POL 1000 – Lecture 7: Feminism & Environmentalism Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University...
-
Upload
horace-moore -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
Transcript of POL 1000 – Lecture 7: Feminism & Environmentalism Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University...
POL 1000 – Lecture 7: Feminism & Environmentalism
Sean ClarkLecturer, Memorial University
Doctoral Fellow, CFPS
Fall Session, 2011
Lecture Arc
1. Feminism. Concepts. Activist waves. Theoretical divisions. Contemporary circumstances.
2. Ecopolitics. Concepts. Origins. Contemporary branches.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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’).
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.
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?
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.