The draft article that was here has now been submitted to a journal, because finally I am almost finished marking and had time to finalise and submit it (VK 23 November 2019)
Wednesday, 24 April 2019
Monday, 1 April 2019
Why we should address both climate change and inequity - responding to the Green New Deal
Rhiana Gunn-Wright, the policy lead for the Green New Deal in the USA, paid me the courtesy on Twitter of being interested in my research findings.
It's been hard to respond, for reasons I explain at the end of this post. However I've tried below.
The question is, why should we try to address both equity and environmental sustainability (or climate change more specifically, as the Green New Deal does)? Rhiana has posted several threads addressing this question on Twitter, because people evidently ask about it a lot (for good and bad reasons). I won't try to summarise all her answers here, but recommend people to look at some of them, for example here.
I've encountered similar questions, including an email discussion I had with a prominent 'public intellectual'. I've referred to this in the thesis, but won't quote directly because the person's views may have changed. As I understood it at the time, he agreed that addressing inequity was important, but saw it as a very complicated and difficult long-term challenge, whereas climate change has to be addressed urgently. Therefore trying to address equity while addressing climate change means we risk dangerous delay.
Most people in the climate change/ environmental sustainability policy area probably recognise that the risks for people are most severe for disadvantaged groups. So in that sense, most probably recognise we have to take that into account. But in regard to the question above, it's not just about minimising risks, it's about actively seeking measures that will improve equity as well as mitigate climate change and promote environmental sustainability - and in the case of my research, specifically health and wellbeing as well. (I apologise for calling it 'my' research, but as I'm writing this post, and indeed this whole blog, as an individual, I can't always say 'our', or attempt to speak for everybody concerned, even though it was collaborative research.)
The Green New Deal is a policy to address climate change and equity in one of the world's largest and most powerful countries, whereas our research project was a collaborative project involving just over a hundred people in three areas of Victoria, Australia. So this is very much small meets big. But intensive small scale research can help us understand big questions.
The focus of our research was on 'how' to promote equity and environmental sustainability together. It was a practice-based question that arose from the fact that both were existing priorities for us in the original Primary Care Partnership where the research started. But as it went on, I realised the 'why' question was important, and started to think a lot about it, particularly about the issue of common causation - are there common causes for inequity and environmental sustainability? Because of course this really provides a logical basis for addressing both together, as well as an ethical one. I spent quite a lot of time looking at this, but because I came to it late in the project, I didn't have much opportunity to consider it with participants. I am writing further about this now and trying to pull the threads together. Specifically the key points are:
1. The insight of research participants that we are living in a society in which some or many people feel they are entitled to have more wealth and resources than others, and to use the earth's resources in ways which are unsustainable and cause harm, including harm to other species (how far this is conscious or unconscious was not explored).
2. Evidence that this is not just 'natural', but culturally constructed, because in the preceding (and continuing) Indigenous society, people were (and are) specifically constrained to look after the earth (country) and the children of the earth.
3. My analysis, drawing on ecofeminist theory and historical evidence, that this is not only due to capitalism (as suggested by some research participants) but to a society (established following the British invasion) which was patriarchal, hierarchical, white supremacist and capitalist. The underlying proposed ethical basis or justification for this society may be expressed as 'white men who have the capacity (through capital, education in scientific rationality, and, particularly in the occasional case of emancipists, hard work) to improve the land, have a natural right to own and have control over it in order to make profits and accumulate wealth. They also have an associated natural right to be heads of households and in charge of governance.'
4. A lot of this has now been contested (especially the overtly anti-democratic, sexist and racist aspects of it) and some dismantled, but by no means all. Many aspects are still reflected in practice if not in theory, and some have not even been contested, including the rights to private ownership of land, and to unequal income, power, wealth and authority (especially evident in work hierarchies, which are getting less, not more, equal). The right to environmentally destructive actions is being contested, but this is very difficult, and the grounds are limited, with many politicians and their expert advisors preferring a system based on price, rather than dealing with questions about inherent rights to environmental destruction.
5. The idea that societies can be egalitarian is often contested by those who point to the 'failures' of socialism. But socialism in this sense is a very limited social experiment of recent times, and still had many of the sexist and racist assumptions, and assumptions about 'man's' superiority to, and capacity to improve upon, nature, embedded in it. If we want to look for examples of egalitarian and sustainable societies, we have a much better and extremely long lived example in the Indigenous societies that preceded British invasion in Australia. To say we can learn from them doesn't mean we have to exactly replicate them, or that white society hasn't produced anything good or useful. But we have to lean to critically evaluate both societies, and recognise that a lot of the ideas we have about the so-called 'primitive' nature of Indigenous societies are actually myths based on racism (see for example Dark Emu).
This discussion is inherently complicated and difficult and lends itself to misinterpretation by those who want to retain the status quo. But additionally, as a feminist who has been quite heavily involved in politics as a researcher, adviser and candidate, I've often been extremely depressed and discouraged by the way I've been treated - especially by men, but also by some women. This depression and discouragement makes it hard to do the intellectual work of putting my ideas in a coherent form. I feel 'what's the point, no-one's going to listen'.
In fact, two political parties (Labor and Greens) have taken my policy work to elections, but they've done it while deliberately excluding me - and few people seem to care about that. I think this is one important reason why white male dominated politics persists, because we 'others' who dare to question it get discouraged by the constant belittling or ignoring of our perspectives or contribution.
But I am trying to keep going. It is important to focus on positives, and Rhiana's interest is a positive. Therefore I will try to do the work of responding to it.
Like most academics, I'm also under pressure to publish in academic journals if I want to be taken seriously, and this kind of work is also hard to do for that reason. There's the constant feeling 'I should be working on my article' even though the kind of political work that Rhiana is doing will have much bigger immediate consequences (I also know that Rhiana and others have done the academic work behind this as well, of course). Anyway, I've had a go, as above.
It's been hard to respond, for reasons I explain at the end of this post. However I've tried below.
The question is, why should we try to address both equity and environmental sustainability (or climate change more specifically, as the Green New Deal does)? Rhiana has posted several threads addressing this question on Twitter, because people evidently ask about it a lot (for good and bad reasons). I won't try to summarise all her answers here, but recommend people to look at some of them, for example here.
I've encountered similar questions, including an email discussion I had with a prominent 'public intellectual'. I've referred to this in the thesis, but won't quote directly because the person's views may have changed. As I understood it at the time, he agreed that addressing inequity was important, but saw it as a very complicated and difficult long-term challenge, whereas climate change has to be addressed urgently. Therefore trying to address equity while addressing climate change means we risk dangerous delay.
Most people in the climate change/ environmental sustainability policy area probably recognise that the risks for people are most severe for disadvantaged groups. So in that sense, most probably recognise we have to take that into account. But in regard to the question above, it's not just about minimising risks, it's about actively seeking measures that will improve equity as well as mitigate climate change and promote environmental sustainability - and in the case of my research, specifically health and wellbeing as well. (I apologise for calling it 'my' research, but as I'm writing this post, and indeed this whole blog, as an individual, I can't always say 'our', or attempt to speak for everybody concerned, even though it was collaborative research.)
The Green New Deal is a policy to address climate change and equity in one of the world's largest and most powerful countries, whereas our research project was a collaborative project involving just over a hundred people in three areas of Victoria, Australia. So this is very much small meets big. But intensive small scale research can help us understand big questions.
The focus of our research was on 'how' to promote equity and environmental sustainability together. It was a practice-based question that arose from the fact that both were existing priorities for us in the original Primary Care Partnership where the research started. But as it went on, I realised the 'why' question was important, and started to think a lot about it, particularly about the issue of common causation - are there common causes for inequity and environmental sustainability? Because of course this really provides a logical basis for addressing both together, as well as an ethical one. I spent quite a lot of time looking at this, but because I came to it late in the project, I didn't have much opportunity to consider it with participants. I am writing further about this now and trying to pull the threads together. Specifically the key points are:
1. The insight of research participants that we are living in a society in which some or many people feel they are entitled to have more wealth and resources than others, and to use the earth's resources in ways which are unsustainable and cause harm, including harm to other species (how far this is conscious or unconscious was not explored).
2. Evidence that this is not just 'natural', but culturally constructed, because in the preceding (and continuing) Indigenous society, people were (and are) specifically constrained to look after the earth (country) and the children of the earth.
3. My analysis, drawing on ecofeminist theory and historical evidence, that this is not only due to capitalism (as suggested by some research participants) but to a society (established following the British invasion) which was patriarchal, hierarchical, white supremacist and capitalist. The underlying proposed ethical basis or justification for this society may be expressed as 'white men who have the capacity (through capital, education in scientific rationality, and, particularly in the occasional case of emancipists, hard work) to improve the land, have a natural right to own and have control over it in order to make profits and accumulate wealth. They also have an associated natural right to be heads of households and in charge of governance.'
4. A lot of this has now been contested (especially the overtly anti-democratic, sexist and racist aspects of it) and some dismantled, but by no means all. Many aspects are still reflected in practice if not in theory, and some have not even been contested, including the rights to private ownership of land, and to unequal income, power, wealth and authority (especially evident in work hierarchies, which are getting less, not more, equal). The right to environmentally destructive actions is being contested, but this is very difficult, and the grounds are limited, with many politicians and their expert advisors preferring a system based on price, rather than dealing with questions about inherent rights to environmental destruction.
5. The idea that societies can be egalitarian is often contested by those who point to the 'failures' of socialism. But socialism in this sense is a very limited social experiment of recent times, and still had many of the sexist and racist assumptions, and assumptions about 'man's' superiority to, and capacity to improve upon, nature, embedded in it. If we want to look for examples of egalitarian and sustainable societies, we have a much better and extremely long lived example in the Indigenous societies that preceded British invasion in Australia. To say we can learn from them doesn't mean we have to exactly replicate them, or that white society hasn't produced anything good or useful. But we have to lean to critically evaluate both societies, and recognise that a lot of the ideas we have about the so-called 'primitive' nature of Indigenous societies are actually myths based on racism (see for example Dark Emu).
Why it's hard to write this.
This discussion is inherently complicated and difficult and lends itself to misinterpretation by those who want to retain the status quo. But additionally, as a feminist who has been quite heavily involved in politics as a researcher, adviser and candidate, I've often been extremely depressed and discouraged by the way I've been treated - especially by men, but also by some women. This depression and discouragement makes it hard to do the intellectual work of putting my ideas in a coherent form. I feel 'what's the point, no-one's going to listen'.
In fact, two political parties (Labor and Greens) have taken my policy work to elections, but they've done it while deliberately excluding me - and few people seem to care about that. I think this is one important reason why white male dominated politics persists, because we 'others' who dare to question it get discouraged by the constant belittling or ignoring of our perspectives or contribution.
But I am trying to keep going. It is important to focus on positives, and Rhiana's interest is a positive. Therefore I will try to do the work of responding to it.
Like most academics, I'm also under pressure to publish in academic journals if I want to be taken seriously, and this kind of work is also hard to do for that reason. There's the constant feeling 'I should be working on my article' even though the kind of political work that Rhiana is doing will have much bigger immediate consequences (I also know that Rhiana and others have done the academic work behind this as well, of course). Anyway, I've had a go, as above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)