Recreating Men’s Relationship with Nature: Toward a Profeminist Environmentalism

Patriarchy, Hegemonic Masculinity, and Environmental Destruction

A number of feminist critics have identified the ways in which masculinist notions of objectivity and rationality have dominated men’s attitudes toward nature. Climate change science purports to provide an objective and transcendent scientific perspective on environmental crises. Technocratic and marketized approaches to addressing environmental problems also prevail. Such technocratic and science-based approaches are not seen as a problem if one believes that environmental crisis are solely a product of ozone disintegration or physical deteriorization. However, we are not just concerned here with crises of physical ecosystems.

There are clear links between patriarchal social structures and environmental crises and ecological destruction. Environmental crises arise from social, cultural, and political relations and institutions. These relations and institutions are male dominated and premised upon masculinist assumptions about the social and the natural world.

Feminist approaches to science demonstrate the ways in which scientific practice is not neutral and reflects and reproduces masculinist power relations. The form of objectivity affirmed by science is seen to be embedded in a form of masculine subjectivity. Keller (1982) suggests an alternative approach, what she calls “dynamic objectivity,” which rather than a form of detachment, encourages an empathic approach to the world that acknowledges emotions and subjective experiences. While women are often more able to practice dynamic objectivity because of the ways in which gendered differences are socially constructed, men could potentially learn to develop this capacity. Feminist science studies have much to offer a renewed understanding of the relationship between masculinity and climate change and consequently men’s relationship with the environment. They encourage men to move beyond the logic of domination and control and the techno-scientific framing of climate change.

Western science’s approach to knowledge and methodology has been oriented toward dominating nature. Geoengineering as a strategy to address climate change is an example of a masculinist technical approach to environmental problems. When climate change is framed as a techno-scientific problem based on an ideology of the domination and control of nature, there is less focus on the ethical and political issues at stake. A masculinist focus on technical issues neglects the social and gender justice concerns about the impact of climate change on women and vulnerable populations. Consequently, there is less attention on challenging the patriarchal interests that are threatened by environmental actions.

While there are links between hegemonic masculinity and masculinist structures, it does not mean that men should be excluded from strategies to challenge these structures. Men should bear the greatest responsibility for challenging environmental disasters because they are largely responsible for perpetrating them. We must be careful, however, not to see men’s power and dominance as reflective of some sort of essence within men. Men’s ecologically destructive actions have to be seen in historical and local social contexts. Also, if there is a “bad” essence in men, there is little scope for transforming men, masculinities, and male culture. If male culture and hegemonic masculinity are socially constructed, then they can be transformed. However, men have material interests in maintaining the status quo, and if they are to be part of the solution in addressing environmental crises, they will need to open themselves to the pain that comes from recognizing the costs of men’s human and environmentally destructive actions.

Hegemonic Masculinity and the Environment Movement

Hegemonic masculinity can explain why men show comparatively less concern than women for the environment. In a study conducted by Stoddardt and Tindall (2011) in Canada, men interviewed drew upon hegemonic masculinity discourses to validate their lack of involvement in environmental movements. Alaimo (2009) similarly refers to a form of hypermasculinity to explain men’s dismissive attitudes toward environmental problems while at the same time contributing to masculinist consumption patterns that increase men’s carbon footprints. Dahl (2015) also identifies the various masculinity discourses that influence men’s attitudes toward the environment. Men’s resistance to pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors may be due in part to the association of environmental consciousness with femininity. It seems that if men are to reconsider the importance of the environment, they will need to challenge dominant forms of masculinity.

To what extent then do men in the environment movement make connections between environmental activism and feminist politics? What discursive frameworks do such men use to interpret environmental issues? Twine (1997) sees ecological politics as an arena for profeminist men to challenge hegemonic masculinity and to develop a nonoppressive relationship with nature. However, he notes that hegemonic masculinity may resurface in environmental politics if environmental activism is not fused with profeminism.

Over twenty-five years ago, Connell (1990) interviewed six men in the Australian environment movement to consider the extent to which such sites encouraged men to take on feminist ideas and practices and challenge attitudes toward masculinity. The interviews with the men demonstrated that antihegemonic politics threatened these men’s masculine subjectivities as well as those of other men who regarded them as gender traitors. Connell alerted the reader to the political project of men remaking their gendered selves through consciousness raising and political action.

Environmentalism appears to threaten hegemonic masculinity. Male environmentalists are often portrayed as less manly than other men. This is particularly apparent with male vegetarians who choose not to eat meat for ethical reasons. Empathy with nonhuman animals challenges the masculinity involved in eating meat. There is a resurgence in a “meat-as-masculinity” discourse, whereby meat consumption is a symbol of patriarchal masculinity (Rothgerber 2013). As I have noted elsewhere (Pease 2016), vegetarian men violate normative expectations of masculinity’s association with meat consumption. Given the impact that meat consumption has on carbon emissions, resistance to vegetarianism among men because of the threat it poses to hegemonic masculinity is a matter of concern. As one of the motivations for vegetarianism is the environmental impact of meat consumption, meat eating by men as a means of shoring up traditional masculinity and demonstrating virility is another gender-based obstacle to environmental sustainability.

Because green attitudes are viewed by some men as “feminine,” some environmentalists argue that environmentalism should be deliberately presented as more masculine in order to engage greater numbers of men. Friedman (2007), for example, argues that the environment movement should market itself in a more masculine mode to break the perceived connection between environmental consciousness and softness or femininity in men. Similarly, in relation to consumption, one proposed solution is to rebrand as masculine what are seen as stereotypical feminine products (Brough et al. 2016). However, if we are to encourage men to relate to nature in less oppressive ways, we should not marginalize what are seen as “feminine” values in order to recruit more men to environmentalism, as such values are essential in addressing the causes of environmental problems.

Ecofeminism Revisited

There has been considerable writing about women’s relationship with nature, especially in relation to turning nature into something that is feminine, as in “mother nature” and “mother earth.” Thus, to address the issue of men and nature, it is necessary to revisit women’ relationship with nature through the lens of ecofeminism. It needs to be emphasized that there is more than one ecofeminism. It is thus more appropriate to refer to ecofeminisms in the plural to capture the variety of different perspectives. What all ecofeminisms share in common, however, is the importance of linking ecological struggles with feminist struggles. All ecofeminisms emphasize the connections between the treatment of women and the treatment of nonhuman species and the natural environment.

There are numerous feminist critiques of essentialism in ecofeminism. A number of feminists working on environmental issues argue that essentialist notions about women’s connection to nature let men “off the hook” from taking action to address ecological crises. The essentialist premise of cultural feminism makes it difficult for men and women to develop solidarity in challenging environmental destruction.

Gaard (2011) believes that there are some features of ecofeminism that can be retrieved. While one can reject the ecofeminist claims about women’s biological affinity with nature, this does not mean rejecting the links between men’s oppression of women and men’s ecologically destructive practices. It is important to acknowledge the role that ecofeminism, even the essentialist varieties, played in shedding light on the impact of patriarchy and hegemonic masculinity on the environment.

In opposition to cultural feminists’ claims about women’s affinity with nature, social and materialist ecofeminists focus on the links between women’s understanding of nature and their experience of oppression and exploitation by men (Connell and Pearce 2015). Social ecofeminist approaches focus more on the sexual division of labor that assigns women to caring roles in the family and caring occupations in the public sphere. They emphasize the material conditions of women’s lives and the work that they are prescribed to establish nonbiological links between women and nature (MacGregor 2006).

Social and materialist ecofeminism is grounded in political economy. Feminist political ecology gives emphasis to the political economy of social relations that impact on the environment and intersectionalist approaches consider the impact of race, class, sexuality, and other forms of social divisions on women’s and men’s experiences. In this essay, I argue that feminist approaches that emphasize the material sources of men’s oppression of women and destruction of nature hold the most promise for developing an alternative understanding and practice for men to engage with nature in nonoppressive ways. Following the political project of feminist environmentalism (MacGregor 2017), I offer the beginnings of a profeminist environmentalism.

Ecofeminism, Masculinity, and Nature

Understandably, ecofeminism was focused on women’s experiences. If masculine power is the driving force of environmental destruction, then it is understandable that ecofeminists will see women as leaders in the development of a more ecologically sustainable world. Women may be seen to have a different stake in ending the domination of nature because of the connections between the oppression of women and the exploitation of nature. Many men consequently reacted against ecofeminism because it was done by women and they could not see a place for themselves within it.

While social ecofeminists and feminist environmentalists have long recognized that men’s dominating and controlling relationship with nature is connected to hegemonic forms of masculinity, there is surprisingly little feminist scholarship on the relationship between masculinity and nature. Most research on gender and the environment is focused upon the impact of environmental crises on women and what they can do about it. There is little consideration of what it means for men and how they perpetuate, accommodate to, or resist environmental destruction.

Some feminists argued that it was difficult for men to challenge environmental destruction because of their internalized superiority (Daly 1978). More recently, however, many ecofeminist writers have argued that men can be involved in ecofeminism and can become gentle, caring, and nondominating (Phillips and Rumens 2016; Gaard 2017). While men have historically dominated nature, they can be inspired by ecofeminism to challenge masculinist ideologies and hegemonic male power.

Ecomasculinism, Ecoman, and Ecological Masculinities

Much of the writing on men and nature has come out of the mythopoetic men’s movement. The mythopoetic men’s movement draws from fairy tales, ancient mythology, and Jungian psychology to explore what are seen to be men’s Zeus energy. Bly (1990) elaborated on this approach in his best seller Iron John. Men are encouraged to get in touch with their male energy by learning from the Wild Man in ancient mythology. To learn to commune with nature, animal sacrifice and hunting are encouraged.

I have criticized the mythopoetic men’s movement elsewhere (Pease 2002). I argue that the promotion of the Wild Man reinforces traditional masculinities and entrenches oppressive masculine behavior. Pursuing the masculine is likely to revive misogyny and lead to further deteriorization of men’s capacity to relate to women. I criticize Bly’s use of myths and fairy tales for their claim to represent certain truths about the male psyche. I note that the myths often derive from patriarchal societies and are used by men to reinforce their power over women and to advance patriarchal discourses and practices (Pease 2002).

Pule (2013) in developing an argument for what he calls “ecological masculinism,” as a away forward for engaging men in pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, draws heavily upon the mythopoetic men’s movement. However, if the project of building men’s fellowship and promoting men’s interests is framed by patriarchal premises, I cannot see how it is a starting point for men. It is not just the lack of structural analysis that is missing, it is also the deeply embedded patriarchal mind-set of mythopoetic men’s politics and practices.

Other ecomasculine perspectives promote the image of the Green Man. The Green Man, a pagan archetype, is posited as the antithesis of traditional masculinities. Anderson (1990) claims that the Green Man is a universal archetype who has arisen because of men’s disconnection with the environment. Hardin (2004) also promotes the Green Man, as a male representative of the pagan tradition and as a positive image for men. He argues that the problem is not with the nature of masculinity or manhood but rather men’s separation from their “natural maleness.” For him, the aim is for men to reclaim their wild being based on their uniquely male hormones which transcend time and culture.

Smith (2008) sees parallels between the Wild Man and the Green Man, as both movements search for essentialist truths about men and masculinity in an idealized past. He argues that archetypal images of masculinity in neo-Jungian and spiritual men’s movements aim to shore up conceptions of manhood. Appeals to powerful mythical archetypes validate men’s sense of entitlement to power. Such approaches are premised upon essentialist notions of masculinity.

Mark Allister’s (2004a) anthology within the discipline of ecocriticism constructs the notion of “ecoman” as an alternative perspective on men and nature. He maintains at the outset that his book is not intended to refute ecofeminism (Allister 2004b). In fact, ecoman is positioned as an ally to ecofeminism. However, various contributors, Smith (2004), Slovic (2004), and Farell (2004), in particular, develop strong critiques of ecofeminism from an ecomasculinist and antifeminist perspective. They emphasize what they see as the positive and healthy male attitudes toward humans and the planet. Farrell (2004), for example, expresses the importance of men expanding their traditional patriarchal role as providers beyond the family to nature that nourishes families. Men are thus encouraged to become protectors and defenders of the planet from hostile forces. It is difficult to see how this form of ecocriticism can provide an alternative nonpatriarchal pathway for men.

Hultman (2017) has identified three different forms of masculinity, which have different impacts on nature: industrial, ecomodern, and ecological masculinities. Industrial masculinities reflect the hegemonic and dominant form that has been instrumental in shaping human and environment relations in industrial societies. Such masculinity is evident in geo-engineering and environmental management projects, noted earlier, that are aimed at “fixing” the environment through technological means. Ecomodern masculinities involve a minor change in industrial masculinities with that incorporates some elements of green thinking. Informed by the ecomodern discourse that claims there is no inevitable conflict between economic growth and environmental problems, ecomodern masculinities recognize environmental issues but continue to support technologies and policies that have a destructive impact on the environment. Ecological masculinities provide for Hultman a vision of what pro-ecological masculinities might become and posits this masculinity as having a nonabusive relationship with nature. However, does ecological masculinity provide a way forward for men?

Beyond Ecological Masculinities

The problem with ecomasculinity approaches that emphasize the lack of “balance” in men and the importance of men discovering the “feminine” within themselves or their “natural maleness” is that men’s domination of women is neglected. Mellor (1992) criticized early attempts by men to respond to ecofeminism by embracing the feminine principle or seeking to find masculine and feminine balance as embracing an ecofeminine rather than ecofeminist position because they ignore the power relations between men and women. While this feminist work predates the development of ecological masculinities, this critique is relevant to current attempts to create an ecomasculine or ecomasculinist positon.

Gaard (2017) is hopeful about the potential to develop a feminist-informed ecological masculinity. Although she is unsure of what it would mean, she does emphasize that both individual and institutional transformations are necessary. She draws attention to the warning raised by Richiardeilli et al. (2010) who note that when hegemonic forms of masculinity are challenged, new forms of masculinity emerge which renew and strengthen the hegemonic form. Requena-Peligri (2017) has also warned of the dangers of well-meaning men espousing environmentalism and caring but reproducing hegemonic forms of masculinities. To avoid this, we must critically problematize all forms of masculinities, including so-called caring and ecological masculinities.

The development of ecological masculinities is similar to attempts to develop inclusive forms of masculinity that are nonhomophobic and involve more emotionally expressive and softer expressions of masculinity (Anderson 2011). These alternative forms of masculinity are optimistic about men’s potential to transform themselves toward less exploitative and less abusive masculinities. O’Neil (2015) suggests that these attempts to formulate alternative masculinities allow masculinity scholars to critique patriarchal gender relations, while advancing a way forward for men. However, as some feminist critiques warn, we have to be careful that men advancing alternative masculinities do not remake gender inequality in new and more subtle ways.

Conclusion

Men need to eliminate ideological attitudes that have severed their sense of embeddedness in nature. This requires men to break with the view of nature as an object and a commodity that is separate from human beings. It is our vulnerability and our corporeal connection to the material world that fosters an ethic of care for the environment. If men’s relationship with nature is founded on hegemonic masculinity, then a nonoppressive relationship with nature will require a transformation of dominant ways of being a man, if not a retreat from manhood itself. Men will need to transform their sense of authority over nature and their internalized invinceability.

I believe that encouraging greater emotional and physical vulnerability among men will challenge the denial that causes them illness and stress. This involves men developing emotional connections to nature. Men can work within feminist environmentalism by developing a more empathic role in relating to nature that will enable them to move beyond the practices of objectifying and subjugating nature. Men thus need to be encouraged to experience emotional and physical vulnerability in response to nature.

Men must learn how to express their emotions and concerns about the looming ecological crisis facing the planet. This will involve expressing rage, grief, fear, and despair about the environmental challenges we face. It is unemotional passivity and denial about global ecological destruction that is the problem. Expressing emotions as a natural response to environmental crises is often a catalyst to taking action to address these environmental issues. It is only when we feel the pain for our role in environmental degradation that we will feel motivated to act.

If hegemonic masculinity is founded upon the desire the control nature, then new ecological practices by men will need to challenge not only masculinity but patriarchy as well.