Intersectionality and the environmental crisis
Part 2
A transdisciplinary, eco-feminist and queer-ecology approach
An intersectional analysis that questions the way in which dominant contemporary political and economic trends and the management of the environmental crisis are articulated would benefit from taking eco-feminist and eco-queer theories into account. There are several reasons for this:
Firstly, equality, equity, freedom and human rights as they are perceived today are measured by the following standards:
- men's wages
- economic growth
- material resources
- consumption
Basically, to be free today is to be able to afford X or Y (object or person). To be well paid is to be paid like a cisgender man. To be a democracy is to have access to consumer goods, such as those presented as necessary in Western life. To have rights is to have money. The problem with these standards is that, 1, they offer zero alternatives in terms of lifestyle choices, 2, they place money and production at the center, 3, they are defined by a small elite who benefit from this system, 4, they run counter to the needs of the environment and require intensive use of non-renewable resources, 5, they deny the existence of the needs and desires of non-Western, non-cisgender, disabled people. Uncovering these contradictions and analyzing the complexity of social and power relations could reconcile economic, political and environmental projects, leading to viable societal restructuring that cares for the environment and the population as a whole. Understanding the scope of these issues could also lead to the creation of coalitions around themes that affect a large number of people and ecologies.
Secondly, eco-feminism and queer ecology offer a more comprehensive vision of class relations and dynamics than Marxist theories, by integrating reproductive labor. Marx focused solely on productive labor. But production and reproduction go hand in hand in our economic systems.
For the record, reproductive labor includes :
- love - bell hooks argues that some people work part-time instead of full-time in order to do this work. She uses the example of people who care about the relationships in their homes.
- care - for children, senior citizens, disabled people, pets (e.g.: going to the chemist's, making hospital visits, accompanying people to doctors' appointments, feeding and bathing others)
- subsistence - cooking, grocery shopping, tending the fields, getting water.
- housework and cleaning
- biological reproduction of human beings (reproduction of the species, production of future soldiers and workers)
- cultural reproduction
- social reproduction
As you can well imagine, reproductive work takes time and energy. Most of it is done by women, POC1, migrants and the poor. This work is free, invisible, devalued and unrecognized. Yet without it, society, its ideologies and its economy would fall apart. And that's the point of highlighting this economic and sociological reality. Altering the conditions under which reproductive work is carried out could change the economic and social fabric as we know it (=submit it) today, and at the same time transform our relationship with the environment: Task-sharing, shorter working hours, fair wages for all internationally, improved paediatric care, allowing cisgender men to have emotions, collecting wages for care work, improving working conditions worldwide, international recognition of migrant people's diplomas, caring for nature and animals, transforming consumption patterns, etc.
Another issue with reproductive work is the way it is most often represented. We have the image of the straight American suburban family, with its well-separated and defined gender roles, its 2 children, its pedigree dog, its 2 cars, its single-family house. But this representation is extremely problematic. It upholds heterosexism, fails to recognize as legitimate the families and reproduction of queer, POC and disabled people, supports eugenics and anti-immigration ideologies, the erroneous Malthusian theory linking overpopulation and environmental destruction (= asserting that the problem is the reproduction of “others”, not my annual consumption), the false binarity of genders, and the unequal economic system based on the production, consumption and exploitation of poor workers in the South. This type of family also creates pollution and uses a lot of non-renewable energy. It is therefore vital to :
- propose models of reproduction that encourage the creation of families and communities that don't stick to the conservative model of the nuclear family (several generations under the same roof, several families living together, multicultural families, queer parenting, polyamory, etc.),
- understand that environmental problems stem from encouraged over-consumption, not from the reproduction of racialized, queer, poor and disabled people,
- consider that the countries of the Global South could create family models that lead to less polluting modes of consumption, and privilege the empowerment of women, far from the idea of “progress” (= production without limits) imposed by the Global North.
«These social arrangements are heteronormative ; they are naturalized by assumptions about human relationships - sexual, affective, generational, economic and institutional - that assume as a foundation a particular family form, embedded within a romance plot involving narrow views of male and female attraction, differentiated gender and work roles, and unequal power relations. Yet, we are encouraged to think of these sexual/social arrangements as «only» personal, a matter of individual choice (in the liberal version) or of natural/divine determination (in the conservative version). To the contrary, such a heteronormative, patriarchal foundation is not just about family and personal relationships, but also structures understandings and consent to matters of citizenship, market relations, nationhood, and foreign policy.»
Noël Sturgeon, Penguin Family Values : The Nature of planetary Environmental Reproductive Justice, in Queer Ecologies
Questioning power relationships: Looking at the actors who produce standards
Reproducing, consolidating and challenging norms in the context of the climate crisis
In Climate change throught the lens of Intersectionality,
Anna Kaijser and Annika Kronsel discuss the contradictions that exist in pro-environmental behavior in Sweden, and what makes these contradictions possible:
«in Sweden, for example, the tendency is to regard the white, middle-class man driving his new biogas-fuelled car to buy his eco-labelled bananas as the best example of ‘the sustainable modern man’. Yet another example comes from Polk’s research (2009). She argues that affluent masculinity is the norm for the transport sector, in terms of travel needs, priorities, and preferences for travel solutions. For the affluent North, it seems that a predominantly middle-class, white, male car owner has taken precedence as the norm bearer in the transport sector, and is also in a privileged power position regarding the transport sector and transport policy as a whole.»
The consequences of these transportation standards are manifold. Firstly, because this norm is also associated with power (of the person driving), and with an object that is desirable to own (as a symbol of power), different categories of the population will wish to acquire it. Secondly, the people who make political decisions are the same ones who are represented as driving these cars. As a result, if they don't have new visions for themselves, considered valid and desirable, they won't venture to shoot themselves in the foot by regulating the acquisition and use of individual cars.
What's interesting in their example is that the diversity of people involved in the decision-making process makes no difference. Indeed, in Sweden, many women hold important political positions. Despite the social progress they represent, their presence changes absolutely nothing in the legislation and standards surrounding the ownership and use of an individual car. Sad. And it adds further evidence to the facts that: essentialization is not the answer; everyone can fall in line with pre-existing norms; empowering discriminated people is crucial, but this must be accompanied by projects aiming to modify norms and ideologies. A new model of society is indeed needed to manage the ecological crisis effectively. Wishing to bring about structural change without taking into account the context of power relations, and the complexity and fluidity of identities and interests, leads to unrealistic plans for change and the use of inappropriate methods.
«If they don’t give you a seat at the table, don’t just pull a chair. Build a new table.»
Ayanna Pressley
Psychological considerations: Cognitive dissonance, willpower and individual responsibility
Isn't environmental protection ultimately a matter of individual willpower?
Maybe, but mostly no.
Let's take the car as an example. We know it's bad for the environment, but we keep on using it. What mental gymnastics can we use to reduce this cognitive dissonance2 ?
1) We change our behavior = I sell my car.
2) We change our behavior by making a mental compromise = I'll only use my car when I really need it or when there's an emergency.
3) We add a new element = I continue to drive my car as before, but I donate to environmental NGOs in return.
4) We ignore or deny the information that caused the dissonance and carry on as before = there's no environmental crisis, so there's no reason for me to change.
In addition, a person may use a car because their state of health does not allow them to take public transport, because it is a safer option for them, or because there is no public transport where they live. It's important to remember that using a car is not a valid reason to ostracize someone. We don't know why people use their car.
It has also been proven that there is a considerable delay between the moment a decision is made and the moment action is taken. This time is influenced by many factors, including stress levels, the person's environment, clarity of purpose and emotional state. So, even if John continues to eat meat 7 days a week, he might actually be thinking about the best way to transition to a less meaty diet.
Finally, as we've already seen, and at the risk of repeating myself, individual behavior takes place in a context of power relations. Decisions taken by social structures and institutions influence individual behavior, without us even realizing it (3rd power, production of norms and ideologies - are you still with me?). Energy consumption, the use of transport and our food choices are dictated by a norm that describes to the population what a good life should look like and what we should desire. So if Jean continues to eat so much meat, it's probably because supermarket shelves are full of it, barbecue ads abound from May onwards, change takes time and energy, and eating meat is presented as the pinnacle of masculinity. If John wants to limit his meat consumption, he's going to have to get over some Mario Bros-style obstacles to do so = educating himself about nutrition, testing recipes, cooking more often, curbing his cravings in the butcher's department, turning a blind eye to ads, deciding which days to be vegetarian or vegan, pretending around his buddies that eating meat is so cool, questioning his standards of masculinity and hetoronormativity, farting in bed more often, suffering the mockery of colleagues because he eats lentils, and so on. ... all the while companies and institutions carry on as if nothing had happened. Mind you, this is not an encouragement to eat animals and use a private car. Just a reality check.
While the temptation to judge each other's behavior is strong, it's important to remember that influences and diktats infiltrate our lives through far more complex channels than we might like. Keeping this in mind is important to avoid hateful divides between social groups who suffer different degrees and levels of oppression, and to encourage fruitful coalitions.
«We can only free associate through a desire for liberation and a good life, respectively a “vivir sabroso”, as stated recently by Colombia’s black vice president Francia Márquez, and not through fear of each other. This means that encounter, communication, and common action must open the space for change instead of aligning and hermetically sealing it to the supposed or real security needs of injured or traumatized people in anticipation of possible violations. This is not easy, nor is it a plea for harshness or ignorance of the real experiences of everyday structural oppression. Instead, it is a proposal to transcend them — which offers the only possibility of overcoming racist divisions in society.»
Massimo Perinelli, the Aberrations of Identity Politics in Germany
In a third and final section, we will explore notions of privilege and agency, feelings of guilt, emotional care and the creation of intersectional coalitions.
POC : People Of Color
In social psychology, cognitive dissonance is the internal tension in a person's system of thoughts, beliefs, emotions and attitudes (cognitions) when some of them conflict with each other. The term also refers to the tension a person feels when a behavior contradicts their ideas or beliefs.