Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:58:16.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Masculinity and Environment

from Part II - Embodied Environmental Sociology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2020

By
Kathryn Gregory Anderson
Edited by
Katharine Legun ,
Julie C. Keller ,
Michael Carolan  and
Michael M. Bell
Katharine Legun
Affiliation:
Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands
Julie C. Keller
Affiliation:
University of Rhode Island
Michael Carolan
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
Michael M. Bell
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access

Summary

This chapter explores how, in cultures where male power is hegemonic, claiming and mobilizing a masculine identity and avoiding the feminine can become problematic for environmental sustainability. I begin with basic tenets of critical gender theory and masculinities studies that help explain the relationship between masculinity and environment. I then examine recent research suggesting that anti-environmental attitudes and behavior as well as indifference or skepticism about environmental science and risk can be explained in part as performances enacted to signal a masculine identity. After discussing these direct anti-environmental masculine performances, I explore how enacting core masculine-coded performances not directly related to the environment can also obstruct environmental protection. Privileging the rational, technical, and competitive, and avoiding feminine-coded emotion and cooperation can result in excluding social justice arguments for environmental action and favoring technological and business-friendly solutions that may be untested and dangerous – such as climate geoengineering – over vital regulations and multi-lateral cooperation.

Keywords

masculinitygender identity maintenanceenvironmental sustainabilityenvironmental attitudes and concernswhite male effect
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Environmental Sociology , pp. 103 - 116
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anshelm, J., & Hultman, M. (2014). A green fatwā? Climate change as a threat to the masculinity of industrial modernity. NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, 9(2), 84–96.Google Scholar
Arnocky, S., & Stroink, M. (2011). Gender differences in environmentalism: The mediating role of emotional empathy. Current Research in Social Psychology, 16, 1–14.Google Scholar
Bell, S., & Braun, Y. (2010). Coal, identity, and the gendering of environmental justice activism in central Appalachia. Gender and Society, 24(6), 794–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210387277Google Scholar
Bell, S., & York, R. (2010). Community economic identity: The coal industry and ideology construction in West Virginia. Rural Sociology, 75(1), 111–143.Google Scholar
Bennett, G., & Williams, F. (2011). Mainstream Green: Moving Sustainability from Niche to Normal. Retrieved from www.goodlifer.com/2011/04/mainstream-green-moving-sustainability-from-niche-to-normal/Google Scholar
Bosson, J. K., & Michniewicz, K. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033126Google Scholar
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Wasti, S. A. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(5), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208331161Google Scholar
Brandth, B., & Haugen, M. (2006). Changing Masculinity in a Changing Rural Industry: Representations in the Forestry Press. In Campbell, H, Bell, M. M., & Finney, M (eds.), Country Boys: Masculinity and Rural LIfe (pp. 217–234). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. (2018). On the elasticity of gender hegemony: Why hybrid masculinities fail to undermine gender and sexual inequality. In Messerschmidt, J. W., Messner, M. A., Connell, R and Yancey, P Martin, (eds.), Gender Reckonings (pp. 254–274). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., & Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(4), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw044Google Scholar
Brueckner, M. (2007). The Western Australian Regional Forest Agreement: Economic rationalism and the normalisation of political closure. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–8500.2007.00513.xGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, H., & Bell, M. (2000). The question of rural masculinities. Rural Sociology, 65(4), 532–546.Google Scholar
Caniglia, B. S., Brulle, R. J., & Szasz, A. (2015). Civil society, social movements, and climate change. In Dunlap, R. E. and Brulle, R. J. (eds.), Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 235–268.Google Scholar
Cohn, C. (1987). Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals. Signs, 12(4), 687–718.Google Scholar
Collins, P. (2005). Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Connell, R. (2005). Masculinities. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Connell, R. (2016). Afterword. In Enarson, E & Pease, B (eds.), Men, Masculinities and Disaster (p. 234). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639Google Scholar
Connell, R., & Pearse, R. (2015). Gender in World Perspective. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. (2002). Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 353–364.Google Scholar
Dubbert, J. (1979). A Man’s Place: Masculinity in Transition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Fenstermaker, S., & West, C. (2002). Introduction. In Doing Gender, Doing Difference: Inequality, Power and Institutional Change. New York: Routledge, pp. xiii–xviii.Google Scholar
Ferree, M. (2018). Theories don’t grow on trees: Contextualizing gender knowledge. In Messerschmidt, J, Martin, P, Messner, M, & Connell, R (eds.), Gender Reckonings. New York: New York University Press, pp. 13–34.Google Scholar
Filteau, M. (2016). “If you talk badly about drilling, you’re a pariah”: Challenging a capitalist patriarchy in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region. Rural Sociology, 81(4), 519–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12107Google Scholar
Finucane, M., Slovic, P., Mertz, C., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk, and Society, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/713670162Google Scholar
Fleming, J. (2017). Excuse us, while we fix the sky: WEIRD supermen and climate engineering. In MacGregor, Sherilyn & Seymour, N (eds.), Men and Nature: Hegemonic Masculinities and Environmental Change (Vol. 4, pp. 23–28). RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.5282/rcc/7979Google Scholar
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101–1108.Google Scholar
Gardiner, J. K. (2000). Masculinity, the teening of America, and empathic targeting. Signs, 25(4), 1257–1261.Google Scholar
Hultman, M. (2013). The making of an environmental hero: A history of ecomodern masculinity, fuel cells and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Environmental Humanities, 2, 79–99.Google Scholar
Hultman, M. (2017). Exploring industrial, ecomodern, and ecological masculinities. In MacGregor, Sherilyn (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment (pp. 261–274). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315886572–28Google Scholar
Johnson, A. (2017). Every day like today: Learning how to be a man in love. In MacGregor, Sherilyn & Seymour, N (eds.), Men and Nature: Hegemonic Masculinities and Environmental Change (pp. 45–50). RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society.Google Scholar
Kahan, D., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Law Studies, 4(3), 465–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740–1461.2007.00097.xGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., Silva, C., & Braman, D. (2015). Geoengineering and climate change polarization: Testing a two-channel model of science communication. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002Google Scholar
Kahan, D., Peters, E., Wittlin, M. et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kennedy, E. H., & Dzialo, L. (2015). Locating gender in environmental sociology. Sociology Compass, 9(10), 920–929.Google Scholar
Kennedy, E. H., & Kmec, J. (2018). Reinterpreting the gender gap in household pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Sociology, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1436891Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. (1987). The contemporary “crisis” of masculinity in historical perspective. In Brod, H (ed.), The Making of Masculinities: The New Men’s Studies. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kosakowska-berezecka, N., Besta, T., & Vandello, J. (2016). If my masculinity is threatened I won’t support gender equality? The role of agentic self-stereotyping in restoration of manhood and perception of gender relations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(3), 274–284.Google Scholar
Kronsell, A. (2013). Gender and transition in climate governance. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 7, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.12.003Google Scholar
Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 85(5), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.85.5.853Google Scholar
MacGregor, S. (2017). Gender and environment: an introduction. In MacGregor, S (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Gender and Environment (pp. 1–24). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maniates, M. F. (2001). Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Global Environmental Politics, 1(3), 31–52.Google Scholar
McCright, A. M. (2010). The effects of gender on climate change knowledge and concern in the American public. Population and Environment, 32(1), 66–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010–0113-1Google Scholar
McCright, A. M., & Xiao, C. (2014). Gender and environmental concern: Insights from recent work and for future research. Society and Natural Resources, 27(10), 1109–1113. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.918235Google Scholar
Messerschmidt, J., & Messner, M. (2018). Hegemonic, nonhegemonic, and “new” masculinities. In Messerschmidt, J, Martin, P, Messner, M, & Connell, R (eds.), Gender Reckonings. New York: New York University Press, pp. 35–56.Google Scholar
Milfont, T. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2016). Empathic and social dominance orientations help explain gender differences in environmentalism: A one-year Bayesian mediation analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 85–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.044Google Scholar
NAACP. (2012). Coal Blooded Putting Profits Before People. Retrieved from www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CoalBlooded.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. A. (1995). Feminism and economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 131–148.Google Scholar
Nickleberry, L., & Coleman, M. (2012). Exploring African American masculinities: An integrative model. Sociology Compass, 6(11), 897–907.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5412.278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paap, K. (2006). Working Construction. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Peter, G., Bell, M., Jarnagin, S., & Bauer, D. (2000). Coming back across the fence: Masculinity and the transition to sustainable agriculture. Rural Sociology, 65, 215–233.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2015). Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad. Slate. Retrieved from www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/02/nrc_geoengineering_report_climate_hacking_is_dangerous_and_barking_mad.single.htmlGoogle Scholar
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rome, A. (2003). Give Earth a chance: The environmental movement and the sixties. Journal of American History, 90(2), 525–554.Google Scholar
Rome, A. (2006). Political hermaphrodites: Gender and environmental reform in progressive America. Environmental History, 11, 440–463.Google Scholar
Salleh, A. (ed.). (2009). Eco-Sufficiency & Global Justice. Women Write Political Ecology. New York: Pluto.Google Scholar
Sandilands, C. (1993). On ‘green consumerism’: Environmental privatization and ‘family values.’ Canadian Women’s Studies/ Les Cahiers de La Femme, 13(3), 45–47.Google Scholar
Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-lGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, A. (1995). Sex and the MBA. Organization, 2, 295–317.Google Scholar
Stafford, E. R., & Hartman, C. (2012). Making green more macho. The Solutions Journal (Rocky Mountain Institute), 3(4), 25–29.Google Scholar
Swim, J. K., Vescio, T. K., Dahl, J. L., & Zawadzki, S. J. (2018). Gendered discourse about climate change policies. Global Environmental Change, 48(January), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.005Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Trauger, A. (2004). ‘Because they can do the work’: Women farmers in sustainable agriculture in Pennsylvania, USA. Gender, Place and Culture, 11(2), 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369042000218491Google Scholar
Warren, K. J. (2000). Ecofeminist philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Weber, R., & Dawes, R. (2005). Behavioral Economics. In Smelser, N. J. & Swedberg, R (eds.), The Handbook of Economic Sociology (Second Edition). New York: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Willer, R., Rogalin, C. L., Conlon, B., & Wojnowicz, M. T. (2013). Overdoing Gender: A test of the masculine overcompensation thesis. American Journal of Sociology, 118(4), 980–1022. https://doi.org/10.1086/668417Google Scholar
Wolfers, J. (2015, January 23). How economists came to dominate the conversation. New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2015/01/24/upshot/how-economists-came-to-dominate-the-conversation.html.Google Scholar
Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2014). A Test of the biographical availability argument for gender differences in environmental behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512453991Google Scholar
Yates, A., Luo, Y., Mobley, C., & Shealy, E. (2015). Changes in public and private environmentally responsible behaviors by gender: Findings from the 1994 and 2010 general social survey. Sociological Inquiry, 85(4), 503–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12089Google Scholar
Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P.-P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022–4537.00177Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×