Feminism, Republicanism, Egalitarianism, Environmentalism

Bill of Rights and Gendered Sustainable Initiatives

Yulia Maleta

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9780429998447
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Nonprofit Organizations & Charities
• Index: Social Sciences

This book addresses hegemonic ruling class masculinity and emphasized femininity within renewables organisational governance, and critiques Anglo-Celtic male privilege, as a barrier to women's leadership participation.

Primarily using the Australian socio-political context, the author considers the patriarchal control of organisations and renewables governance, and argues that women-led emphasized femininity-resistance strategies can challenge the hegemonic status of ruling elites to create a leadership that is less power oriented, more collaborative and open to change. Utilising detailed interviews with Australian women environmentalists, together with feminist, sociological and social movement theory, whilst considering the historic context of Red Vienna and contemporary political challenges (Brexit, Monarchism etc.), it puts forward an innovative policy framework for an Australian Bill of Rights Act and republican constitutional change.

Written for academics, activists and policymakers alike, this book offers a unique insight into women's inequity within patriarchal institutionalist governance. It will be engaging and inspiring reading for feminist and environmentalist activists and practitioners, in addition to professional associations focussing on gender, justice and environmental change. Academics and postgraduates in Gender Studies, Ecofeminism, Sociology and Organisational Studies will also find the book of key interest in its interdisciplinary discussions of Sustainable Scientific-Technological Development Initiatives (SSTDI) and feminism in an Australian political context.

Part I

Feminism: A Precursor for Republicanism

1Introduction

Envisioning an Australian Republican-Constitutional change and Bill of Rights Act

Introduction

Utilising my interviews with Australian women environmentalists, this book addresses hegemonic (ruling class) masculinity and emphasized femininity along with intersections of constructivism/essentialism within global renewables governance. My study is framed by a feminist-constructivist-sociocultural qualitative approach centred on: 1. women’s agentic performative multiple skills- set; and, 2. an emphasized femininity approach that is ‘resistant’ to patriarchy (Cockburn 1988, 2013; Plumwood 1997; Gaard 2001; Butler 2007, 2013; Culley and Angelique 2010). My Republican-Bill of Rights modelling of Sustainable Scientific-Technological Development Initiatives (SSTDI) is supported by Women-Led Wind, Wave and Solar Energy (WW & SE) solutions. Applying Connell’s (1995, 2005, 2009) theorisation of hegemony and Cockburn’s (1988) gendering of competence plus patriarchal critique of Social Movements (Cockburn 2012, 2013), and Butler’s (2007, 2009, 2013) insight to gender performativity and political agency, I critique Anglo-Celtic male middle class privilege and ‘the boys club’ as patriarchal barriers, affecting working and middle class women’s renewables leadership (Donaldson and Poynting 2013; Buechler and Hanson 2015; DAWN 2015; AHRC 2016b; Canty 2017; WIE 2018). I develop an emphasized femininity-constructivist-resistant approach to patriarchy, arguing that women-led agentic competence in environmental science is an empowered gender performance, challenging the ruling power of elites (Gerulis-Darcy 2010; Staggenborg 2016; Maleta 2018b; STEMM 2018).

Australia is one of the few Western democracies without a Bill of Rights (Thampapillai 2005; Anderson 2010; Martin 2011; Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act [1977] 2013; Hickman 2018). My book provides an innovative framework for: 1. an Australian Bill of Rights Act; and, 2. a Republican federal constitutional change. Such change is an opportunity to challenge patriarchal institutionalisation, and a culture of privileged elitist envy, replicated through a monarchist polity. My articulation of a Bill is supported by key Sections, aiming to: legislate on women’s renewable technological leadership; reinvigorate governance; revise conservative, dated policies with new policies; replace the Westminster Constitution; challenge hereditary elitism and patriarchal privilege; enable the electorate to vote for an Australian Head of State, thereby envisioning a more inclusive social egalitarian democracy. Although the 1999 Republican referendum was unsuccessful, there is growing momentum for a Republic (MacSmith 2016; Veri 2016). Egalitarianism is associated with Australian identity; and Republicanism is an opportunity to realise such a vision.

In addition, I source the historic era of Red Vienna (1919–34), as a landmark egalitarian example of Republican governance (Blau 1999). With the fall of the Habsburg Monarchy, middle class and working class citizenry gained more power, whereby patriarchal ruling elites were dually challenged (Gruber 1991; Rentetzi 2004, 2010). My appraisal of Red Vienna is supported by a compelling case study of women’s scientific competence in radium research (Rentetzi 2004, 2010). Following Austrian suffrage (1918), women experienced greater civic and civil rights; enabled by Red Vienna’s intellectual and creative scope plus social policies (Blau 1999; Mattl 2009). In my global monarchist critique, I also assess contemporary politics, contending that Brexit (Britain’s exit from the European Union) will neither erode sociocultural inequality, nor achieve an ideal social democratic model. Whereas a ‘British republic’ is an opportunity to challenge hierarchical elites and to reinvigorate governance as well as British sovereign identity.

1.1 Aspirations for an Australian Republic and Bill of Rights Initiatives

In the development of my Bill of Rights Act, I focus on four Sections/articles. Section 1. Women’s Renewables Technological Leadership Initiative. This Initiative legislates on women’s renewables leadership in Wind, Wave and Solar Energy (WW & SE) solutions, supported by diverse sector financial investment (Alston 2011; McFarland 2014; Carnegie Clean Energy 2018; WIE 2018). Section 2. Minority Women’s Leadership in Renewables Organisational Governance Initiative. This section legislates on leadership quotas for my six conceptual groups of women: CALD (Culturally and Linguistically Diverse), socioeconomically disadvantaged, disability status, mature age, Indigenous and Anglo-Celtic women (McFarland 2014; Canty 2017). I include Anglo women as Minority Women, for Anglo men dominate renewables management (Bombora Wave Power 2018; Carnegie Clean Energy 2018). Section 3. Women’s Leadership Equality in Male-dominated Work Sectors Initiative. This section targets leadership quotas in under-represented sectors, as politics and science, in order to counter glass ceilings and structural barriers (Maleta 2011b; Farr et al. 2017; STEMM 2018). Section 4. Indigenous Treaty. Recently, Indigenous Constitutional recognition was rejected by the ruling establishment (Jacks 2017). Yet a Republican constitutional change would recognise Indigenous sovereignty, with a formalised Treaty (Brennan 2015; Prokhovnik 2015; Gaard 2017; Nagy 2017; Patel 2018). Hence, my conceptual application of a Human Rights frame, supported by key sub-frames of Inequity-Injustice plus methodological intersections of Feminism, Constructivism, Egalitarianism, Republicanism and Environmentalism, aspires to achieve gender equity, to spur on sustainable technological investment, and ideally, enable Indigenous to non-Indigenous reconciliation plus Indigenous sovereignty. It is an ideal model for a more egalitarian socially just, vibrant participatory democracy.

This sociopolitical change is aligned with the conceptual modelling of my six women groups (CALD, Indigenous, mature/older, socioeconomically disadvantaged, disabled status and Anglo-Celtic), agentic performative multiple skills-set, whereby I envision women’s greater technological leadership of Wind, Wave and Solar Energy (WW & SE) solutions. An overarching human-rights framework, and sub-frames of (in)equity and (in)justice, support my methodological approach. My constructivist framework is supported by my conceptual modelling of feminism, egalitarianism, environmentalism and republicanism, whereby I identify core thematic insights, relative to my women participants (members of the Australian Greens party, International [I]‌eNGOs, grassroots organisations and academic institutions) experiences of gender-organisational barriers/enablers. My 31 interviews with women environmentalists support this framework. Notably, my six groups are a futuristic, conceptual modelling, relative to my Act. When I discuss these groups, I source my interviews – but am referring more broadly to women (whom may not be participants). Hence, I propose a futuristic Republican model, aspiring to address women’s greater participatory inclusion through frames of equity/justice within renewables governance.

Gender performativity entails an active negotiation of hegemonic masculinity/emphasized femininity, in which participants negotiate their agency (power relations), competence (intellectual skill) and the ‘I’ in their identities, entailing feminist empowerment and environmental change goals (Butler 2007, 2013; MacGregor 2014). In relation to my interviews with salaried and voluntary women participants of the eNSM (environmental New Social Movement) and its eSMOs (environmental Social Movement Organisations), I aim to improve women’s equity, belonging and empowerment, relative to egalitarian frames (Diani 1992; Snow 2013; Staggenborg 2016; Maleta 2018b). My interviews highlight participants’ agentic performative multiple skills-set and emphasized femininity resistance to ‘the [Parliamentary] boys club’ and ‘executive arm’ of the eNSM. In light of my critique of hegemonic masculinity, women tend to define masculinist approaches as ‘aggressive’, ‘adversarial’ and ‘domineering’ whilst women-led strategies are seen to be ‘conciliatory’, ‘consensus-based’, ‘no ego’, ‘no power’ and ‘less hierarchy’.

Thus far, my Bill provides an innovative framework for a national policy initiative that legislates on women’s workplace inequity, whilst addressing gender barriers and shortfalls in EEO outcomes (Connell 2009; STEMM 2018). In relation to my Women’s Renewables Technological Leadership Initiative (Section 1), I propose 75% of women in WW & SE – an ambitious figure, yet necessary to redress women’s historic to contemporary under-representation in environmental science (Cuomo 2011; McFarland 2014; BWE 2018; EREF 2018; EU ETS 2018; EUREC 2018; SolarPower Europe 2018). This initiative extends to Section 2, focussing on my six Minority Women groups’ scientific leadership engagement. My initiatives should contribute to women’s greater economic independence, elevated career and sociocultural status, thereby challenging the prevailing notion of a patriarch, plus institutionalised patriarchy (Walby 2013, 2015). In support, I source European, British and Australian modes of renewables governance, such as equity programmes, targeting women’s leadership in technological development (RenewableUK 2017; Clean Energy Council 2018; WIE 2018). My legislation of an Indigenous Treaty aims to achieve Indigenous sovereignty and reconciliation of non-Indigenous and Indigenous communities, relative to frames of peace and justice (Brennan 2015; Nagy 2017; Pemberton 2017; Kawharu 2018; Patel 2018).

1.2 My research project: qualitative design and a snapshot of participants

My forthcoming interview-driven chapters are conceptually and methodologically framed by a feminist-constructivist-sociocultural qualitative approach, centred on: 1. women’s agentic performative multiple skills-set; and 2. an emphasized femininity ‘resistant’ approach to patriarchy (MacLeod 1992; Plumwood 1997; Butler 2007, 2013; Culley and Angelique 2010; Cockburn 2013). Hence, the epistemology is constructivist, the theoretical perspective is feminist, and the method is sample-based interview research (Berg and Lie 1995; Crary 2001; Gaard 2001, 2011; Delanty 2005; Wibben 2016). In my interview analysis, I utilise theme identification, plus data, content and conversation analysis (Delanty 2005; Punch 2005; Gaard 2014). This enables me to construe knowledge, framed by participants’ agentic prowess, plus their emphasized femininity leadership resistance to patriarchy (Gaard 2001, 2017; Leahy 2003; Connell 2005; Ruane 2005; Butler 2013; Staggenborg 2016; Nagy 2017).

Considering agentic competent-based interaction, I argue that women members of eNSMs/eSMOs may challenge oppressive patriarchal hierarchies plus ruling class masculinity (Poynting and Donaldson 2005; Donaldson and Poynting 2013; DAWN 2015). My methodological-methods-based approach is supported by feminist, ecological, sociological, socio-legal and movement theory (Connell 1995; Gaard 2001; Butler 2004, 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015; Maddison 2004; Culley and Angelique 2010; Cockburn 2012). Also, I source government reports and legislative Acts; third sector reports; and the demographical composition of global renewable energy organisations and political parties (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act [1977] 2013; Disability Discrimination Act [1992] 2013; ABS 2016b; AHRC 2016a, 2017b; EEO Act [1987] 2016; Greenpeace International, Annual Report, 2016; RenewableUK 2017; Australian Greens, Our Policies, 2018; BWE 2018; Clean Energy Council 2018; SolarPower Europe 2018; WIE 2018).

Drawing upon supporting material and my interviews, I investigate how women in the eNSM experience their activism in relation to gender identity and work relations, and the extent to which their experiences justify my Republican-Bill of Rights. My human-rights frame, supported by sub-frames of (in)justice/(in)equity, enable me to argue for greater women-led direction in renewables technological development. My goal is to achieve a more sustainable, safer, healthier world, framed by my anti-war ethos and peaceful modelling of social and environmental change (Warren 1997, 1999; Butler 2009, 2017; Cockburn 2012, 2013; Wibben 2016; Nagy 2017). Thus, women’s emphasized feminine performativity, in science and technology, questions the patriarchal control of environmental politics and resource-based approaches (Maleta 2015, 2018a).

1.2.1 Conceptualising my six groups

My proposed Republican Constitutional sociopolitical change model, is aligned with the conceptual modelling of my six groups (CALD, Indigenous, mature/older, socioeconomically disadvantaged, disabled status, Anglo), leadership of WW & SE technological solutions and participation in male-dominated work sectors. This is legislated through my Initiatives/Sections. My 31 interview accounts support this framework; I should add that my six groups entail a futuristic, conceptual modelling, relative to my proposed Act. When I discuss these groups, I source my interviews – but am also referring more broadly to women (whom may not be my participants). The interview data, in my empirical chapters, was collected while I was a PhD student, and provide authentic context to my emphasized femininity and gender performativity framework. Relative to my human-rights-(in)equity/(in)justice frames and feminist-constructivist approach, my Bill of Rights, strives to integrate feminism, republicanism, environmentalism and egalitarianism, so as to envision greater women’s leadership in a male-dominated world.

1.2.2 Research procedure and design

As Chief Qualitative Investigator, I led a research project (as part of my PhD study), whereby I interviewed 31 Australian women members of renewables organisational governance: the Australian Greens party, International eNGOs, grassroots organisations and academic institutions. The research study was approved by Western Sydney University. As a former PhD Candidate of Western Sydney University’s School of Social Sciences and Psychology, I officially graduated with a PhD testamur in 2015. My book sources the interview data collected whilst I was a PhD student. This book utilises some material from my PhD thesis. Interview data provides a primary source of knowledge for this book, thereby contributing to the global gender studies field.

Each participant received an information sheet about my study and a consent form – signed on the day of interview. The interview was in a semi-structured format, and qualitatively interpreted, enabling me to draw upon rich, meaningful accounts (Punch 2005; Ruane 2005; Wibben 2016). Ruane adds that qualitative data empowers researchers to ‘walk a mile’ in subjects’ shoes (2005: 12). Also, interviews provide evidence to one’s sociocultural environs. Each interview was tape-recorded with a digital recorder and manual tape recorder. I transcribed some interviews and outsourced the remainder to a professional agency, due to time constraints. Pseudonyms or code names were used, ensuring the privacy of individuals and their organisations. The duration of each interview was approximately 90–120 minutes. One limitation, from my research, is that my sample of 31 is somewhat small, whereby, it is challenging, to represent an overall frame of society. Nonetheless, my research sample represents a sub-frame or snapshot of society, and my empirical evidence connects and/or contradicts with supporting theory and studies (Gaard 2001; Butler 2004, 2009; Connell 2005). My sample, relative to the voices, concerns and struggles plus achievement of women, frames the constructivist development of my Act.

I interviewed Australian women activists/advocates partaking in paid and unpaid capacities of the eNSM and its eSMOs. The initial target was 30 women, with an estimated 50/50 split, for example, fifteen salaried and fifteen volunteers. The interview period was extended, as I required an extra participant. The first interview was conducted in late 2009, and the last interview achieved in 2011 – with a grand total of 31 interviews. Although the academic category has fewer participants, their data is detailed and descriptive, and of immeasurable worth to my intellectual scope. Most academics recognise that EEO laws have enabled women in universities, but they still struggle with gender barriers and glass ceilings, framed by ‘the boys club’ and women as token members on climate panels.

What each participant revealed about themselves and environs was collated in my qualitative analysis, and organised into key and sub-themes. I recognise the subjective element of interviews. As Chief Researcher, one should be careful not to misconstrue opinions or retrospections with facts. Nonetheless, data frames my thematic insights. Chapter headings are based on themes, such as ‘the boys club’ and ‘token women’.

As women volunteers also partake in paid work and salaried women often perform volunteer work, this enables me to compare social relations and work sectors within environmentalism. The rationale of an anti-nuclear activist, for example, may contrast with that of a salaried woman politician. I contend though that participants’ share a common ground sustainable-justice mission, unifying their social and environmental change agendas. While I compare diverse work roles, I avoid casting judgement on whether one is more valued than the other. Rather it is the work experience and subjective satisfaction/dissatisfaction of women, that is of relevance.

1.2.3 Demographics: a sociological snapshot of participants

Of the 31 participants, ten are members of the Australian Greens party, nine of eNGOs/IeNGOs (international environmental nongovernmental organisations), seven of grassroots organisations, and another five are academic activists/advocates. The majority work in salaried environmentalism. The Greens group has eight salaried politicians and two volunteers. In the eNGO group, eight are salaried and one voluntary; whilst, in the academic group, all five are salaried academics. Nevertheless, these academics also perform public (unpaid) advocacy/activism, such as public, community talks. Most salaried participants perform voluntary work. Environmentalism is not a nine to five job, evident by women’s afterhours work, showcasing their passion and determination for the cause. All the grassroots women (total of seven) are volunteers, but had paid jobs, such as in government departments or in public sector roles. Overall, an exact, statistical breakdown of paid versus unpaid is difficult to quantify. What is characteristic about environmental work is that it is community centric and reflective of modern 24/7 schedules.

I have a mix of Anglo-Celtic, CALD, and Indigenous women in my sample. Most are mature/older women. Most participants are white, middle class, well-educated and work in the professions. Six were from CALD backgrounds, including one participant of South American heritage, a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Part I Feminism: A Precursor for Republicanism
• Part II The ‘boys club’ and emphasized femininity resistance
• Part III Emphasized femininity as an agentic performance
• Part IV Conclusion
• References
• Index