Ecological Masculinities

Theoretical Foundations and Practical Guidance

Martin Hultman, Paul M. Pulé

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351763400
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Economía
• Subtopic: Desarrollo sostenible

Around the globe, unfettered industrialisation has marched forth in unison with massive social inequities. Making matters worse, anthropogenic pressures on Earth's living systems are causing alarming rates of thermal expansion, sea-level rise, biodiversity losses in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and a sixth mass extinction. As various disciplines have shown, rich white men in the Global North are the main (although not the only) perpetrators of this slow violence. This book demonstrates that industrial/breadwinner masculinities have come at terrible costs to the living planet and ecomodern masculinities have failed us as well, men included.

This book is dedicated to a third and relationally focused pathway that the authors call ecological masculinities. Here, they explore ways that masculinities can advocate and embody broader, deeper and wider care for the global through to local ('glocal') commons. Ecological Masculinities works with the wisdoms of four main streams of influence that have come before us. They are: masculinities politics, deep ecology, ecological feminism and feminist care theory. The authors work with profeminist approaches to the conceptualisations and embodiments of modern Western masculinities. From there, they introduce masculinities that give ADAM-n for Earth, others and self, striving to create a more just and ecologically viable planet for all of life.

This book is interdisciplinary. It is intended to reach (but is not restricted to) scholars exploring history, gender studies, material feminism, feminist care theory, ecological feminism, deep ecology, social ecology, environmental humanities, social sustainability, science and technology studies and philosophy.

Section II

Four streams

3 Men and masculinities

A spectrum of views

To indoctrinate boys into the rules of patriarchy, we force them to feel pain and to deny their feelings.

(hooks, 2004: 22)

Men and masculinities

The following arguments are based on an understanding that men and masculinities are both constructed and changeable. Keeping with the theme of situatedness introduced in the Prologue, we reiterate that both terms represent researchable categories of various configurations and applications, which have profound impacts on the world (Haraway, 1988; also see Frank, 2008; Hopkins and Noble, 2009; Hearn et al., 2012).¹ By this, we are referring to profeminist research traditions that characterise critical studies on men and masculinities (CSMM) in particular. In doing so, we expose the noteworthy absence of a cohesive and rigorous analysis of the connection between men, masculinities and Earth. In Chapter 1, we acknowledged Connell’s (1995) influential contribution to the now widely accepted notion that there is not a singular rendition of masculinity. In what became a pivotal publication, Connell (1995: 37, 185) convincingly demonstrated the importance of recognising modern Western masculinities as plural, constructed, subjective and examinable as discrete categories. In an elaboration of the complexities associated with masculinities, Connell (2001: 30–34) described essentialist, positivist, normative and material-semiotic distinctions when exploring masculinities politics, suggesting that these categories equate to active, psychological, ethical and symbolic interpretations of the term, respectively. We add that a person might not be ‘biologically male’, but they might behave in competitive, aggressive, egotistical and pragmatic ways, which popular culture would readily describe as ‘masculine’ behaviours and for this reason we consider our analyses to be applicable not only to men, but to women and non-binary/genderqueer people as well.

While the offerings in this book might well be most applicable to cis men, they are intended to be germane to all persons. Further pluralising the terrain of gendered identities, an individual’s demeanour and/or physical characteristics may be indistinguishably male, female, transgendered, androgynous, etc. Such persons may be ‘anatomically female’ but some of the characteristics they embody might be treated as ‘masculine’ and might therefore be considered by others as more like a man and more ‘masculine’ than ‘feminine’. Similarly, an anatomical male might appear feminine or ‘womanly’ and might consider themself as a woman in a man’s body or want to be treated by others accordingly. In addition, individuals might choose intimate relations with members of their same or different gender identities and may find and/or seek out sexual or non-sexual intimacy with others who identify as ‘pan-sexual’, ‘gender-neutral’, ‘questioning’ or ‘post-gendered’. We explore the complexities of this pluralised view on gender when discussing the LGBTIQA+, or rainbow community. For now, we note that when we acknowledge the granularity of these many different ways of understanding gender, identity and the impacts on individuals and their environments, we see that, as Connell and others have eruditely demonstrated, gendered categories are variable, complex and unavoidably plural; beckoning us to celebrate difference precisely because it is unavoidably present in the mosaic of identities that individuals assume (or reject) (Messerschmidt, 2012; Seymour, 2013; Christensen and Jensen, 2014). However, because our primary focus throughout this book is to interrogate the intersectionality between men, masculinities and Earth, we dedicate this chapter to the mosaic of views that persist across the politicised terrain of studies and praxes on men and masculinities that we broadly refer to as masculinities politics (Aboim, 2016).

Australian sociologist Bob Pease (1998: 77) has provided an overview of research on the following activities that have supported our textured understanding of not only the theories, but the variety of practices that have shaped masculinities politics. They are: men’s support groups, ritual healing groups; violence re-education groups; boys programmes to manage errant behaviour or to help transition boys into healthy manhood; men’s health programmes to increase men’s well-being and longevity; men’s rights groups to address the distress that some men express over the loss of connection with their children as a result of relationship breakdowns; anti-feminist backlash groups; alt-right and far-right wing political groups; new age men’s liberation groups; men who support feminist theories; courses about men and masculinities at universities; as well as social actions groups specifically designed for men, which he categorised accordingly: profeminist, gay, spiritual and men’s rights categories (Pease, 2002: 33). Jeff Hearn (1992: 6, 142–146, 208) has similarly and comprehensively argued that ‘man’ as a label is structural and agentic and is therefore subject to public and private aberration within civil society, meaning different masculine identities emerge as they are shaped by variations in systems of social functioning (also see Hearn et al., 2012: 1, 6, 15, 23). Further still, consider Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner’s (1989) four major divisions within masculinities politics: anti-feminist, men’s rights, mythopoetic and profeminist, with Messner (1997) later suggesting eight specific categories: Promise Keepers (joined now by alt-right devotees and twenty-first-century evangelicals), mythopoets, men’s liberationists, men’s rights activists (MRAs), radical feminists, socialist feminists and gay male liberationists. Taking these various perspectives into consideration, we are inspired by the more straightforward categorisations posited by Kenneth Clatterbaugh (1997), those being: socialist, queer, gay, profeminist, black, men’s rights and Christian masculinities. We combine the collective wisdom from the scholarships considered above as our principal guides (also see Pease, 2002; Heasley, 2005). We move through our assessment of this mosaic of views that characterise masculinities politics by highlighting their useful, less-than-useful and dated implications as well as examining the ways that each offering is relevant to ecological masculinities as we formulate it throughout this book. Importantly and further to the various nomenclatural offerings of the scholars mentioned above, the categories we posit below should not be considered exhaustive or mutually exclusive, but a compilation aimed at capturing the far from discrete complexities of masculinities. For example, an individual might be an avid supporter of communalism and the collectivisation of labour that aligns with the realpolitik of socialist masculinities, while also sitting comfortably with some elements of the values associated with Christian masculinities, such as a belief in God or the valorising of men as ‘heads of household’, even though these research traditions and categories are on opposite ends of a traditional political spectrum. Consequently, we argue that individuals can find themselves aligned with elements of multiple positionalities,² even if the politics of those positionalities might be at odds – our lives are after all rife with contradictions. This dynamic view is an important ingredient in formulating our rendition of ecological masculinities. We therefore consider the research below to be a versatile introduction to the field, rather than a prescribed view fixed to a specific framework; we posit a dynamic assessment of masculinities politics instead. We also suggest that pluralism encourages the emergence of fresh insights, critical debates and access to information and praxes that will collectively raise the potential for us to consider the various values, concepts and applications emergent throughout masculinities politics. In doing so, our intention is to create the broadest of possible assessments of men and masculinities; a pluralism that we consider to be vital if we are to successfully create a sustainable world.

Reflective of our combined political views, we align ecological masculinities with a profeminist perspective, recognising that others will contest this (and intentionally welcome lively debate). Further, current events surrounding notions of toxic/extreme masculinities through the exposure of high-profile men to multiple accusations of sexual misconduct or assault, coupled with the socio-political consequences of these exposures of perpetration, are now more visible and must be included in contemporary analyses of masculinities politics (Sexton, 2016; Gleeson, 2017; Solnit, 2017a; Solnit, 2017b; Solnit, 2017c). Such voiced concerns have traditionally been received with silence, denial and fervent backlashes from those who benefit the most from masculine hegemonisation. For example, MRAs and alt-right political agendas have valorised men’s domestic entitlements, violence, rape culture, misogyny, anti-feminism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, anew (Kimmel and Ferber, 2000; Kimmel, 2013; Conroy, 2017; Kelly, 2017). With these contemporary complexities in mind, we provide our analyses of seven research themes, each of which has influenced our conceptualisations of ecological masculinities. They are:

• profeminist masculinities

• the economics of gender equity

• LGBTTTQQIAA-OHP (LGBTIQA+ or non-binary/genderqueer) masculinities

• decolonisation of masculinities

• men’s mythopoetry and nature myth-making

• Christian dogmatic and environmental traditions

• men’s rights groups (toxic/extreme masculinities unleashed)

We offer this overview of the positionalities throughout masculinities politics as our response to contemporary eruptions and lively debates about the state of modern Western masculinities.

Profeminist masculinities

Profeminist masculinities play a crucial role in our analyses. This positionality historically originates from some men’s support for second-wave feminism (Kimmel, 1987). By the mid 1970s, some men sought more organised ways to draw on feminist interventions of male domination and this resulted in the formalisation of profeminism (as distinct from declaring oneself as male and feminist, effectively qualifying men’s efforts to unpack and reframe masculinities in critical alignment as allies to feminism rather than joining women to champion women’s empowerment). Fidelma Ashe (2007: 13, 47–48) noted that the views formulated by profeminists have been instrumental in creating men’s groups that tackle questions of gendered power and practices with the intent of supporting equity and increased agency for all through the democratisation of gender relations. To clarify, we note that ‘gender equity’ and ‘gender equality’ can be used interchangeably.³ However, for our purposes, they are considered distinct, where the former refers to equitable access to resources and opportunities through variable and customised strategies (such as equal opportunity legislation, parental rights in family court proceedings, budgetary measures to reflect the gender-specific differentials in rates of domestic and family violence perpetration/victimisation). The latter, on the other hand, refers to a determination to grant equal access to resources and opportunities for both women and men (which, notably, does not critically analyse the sources, statuses or impacts of those gendered differentials on women and men and – at best – simply aims to uncritically fold women into men’s worlds in greater number to close the demographic gap for the sake of numerical balance – which we find inadequate on account of the lack of sensitivity to different starting positions and access to opportunities). Guided by these distinctions, we subscribe to the former throughout this book to support both women and men to not only be given equal access to resources and opportunities, but that both genders are provided with specific, relevant and appropriate benefits in ways that are not identical at all, but rather are fair and reflective of the differing statistics, circumstances, along with historical and social trajectories that have, are and will continue to affect women’s and men’s lives differently. Of course, following this argument to its logical conclusion, we extend our interpretations of equity to non-binary/genderqueer analyses as well. Our intention here is to support the notion that it is not adequate to simply bring women and human others equally into men’s world, but to reframe our social machinations to create a level playing field that then facilitates the emergence of gender/identity equality reflective of the subjectivities of each group. In this sense, we see gender equity as a necessary precursor to gender equality. Consequently, and countering violent expressions of male domination as products of masculine hegemonisation, we recognise that some men have been seeking allegiances with various forms of feminism for more than two generations (Seidler, 1991; Hill, 2007). Since the 1970s, we have seen the emergence of the White Ribbon Campaign, the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) in the US, the White Ribbon Campaign in Canada, the Achilles Heel Collective in the UK, MEN for Gender Equality in Sweden, along with Men Against Sexual Assault (MASA) and No to Violence (NTV) in Australia. These are just some of the notable examples of community initiatives and organisational manifestations of profeminism that support gender equity praxes through the lens of masculinities. They collectively critique the ways that hegemonic masculinities are infused with hypersensitivities to powerlessness that can unfold in stark contrast to men’s traditional senses of superiority in public spheres – a paradox that profeminists recognise and examine (Kaufman, 1994: 142).

Profeminists are outspoken critics of the predominating characteristic of hegemonic masculinities. A central aim of their analyses of men and masculinities has been to expose and work to end male violence, particularly against women (Seidler, 2014; Flood and Howson eds., 2015). The use of violent force to bolster men’s primacy has long been implemented by military and police personnel as agents of domestic and international government policies just as much as men have perpetrated domestic and family violence at alarming rates (Devries et al., 2013; Ross ed., 2014; ANROWS, 2016). Of course, men’s violence has been used as a form of intimidation not only towards rival societies, women and other marginalised communities or at the familial level, but towards other men as well. According to Connell, these are some of the ways that male domination routinely engages in keeping people and systems in ‘their place’ to protect and preserve the assumed sanctity of masculine hegemonisation (Connell, 1995: 81–86). Profeminists expose the conditioning that sets men up to engage in violent behaviours towards all others and men themselves.

One of the more alarming expressions of violence perpetrated (almost) exclusively by men has been the near-routine occurrence of mass shootings in homes, communities, schools and universities in the West (the clear majority occurring in the US). Consider 64-year-old Stephen Paddock’s ‘bump stock’ shooting (that turned his rifles into the near equivalent of a fully automatic weapons) resulting in fifty-eight deaths in Las Vegas on 1 October 2017 as he sprayed bullets into a crowded open-air music festival. We also note the racially motivated school attack at Trollhättan, Sweden by Anton Lundin Pettersson on 22 October, 2015; Alek Minassian’s ‘involuntary celibate (or incel) rebellion’ where a van was used to run down and claim the lives of 10 pedestrians (mostly women) in Toronto, Canada on 23 April 2018; and the Osmington, Western Australia murder/suicide of 6 members of the Miles family by Peter Miles on 11 May 2018; all examples of recent mass killings perpetrated by men beyond the US. Aspects of mass shootings run parallel with domestic and international terrorism (particularly those that are Christian or Islamic inspired) and have today resulted in these tragedies becoming routine events enacted by those seeking purpose and expressing their passions through extreme acts of violence that not only cause chaos and destruction in the lives of many, but frequently result in the perpetrator’s suicide, termination, or life-long incarceration. That most of these perpetrators are men is no coincidence. Each time these events occur, they underscore the depth of pressure to conform and the intensity of feelings that can manifest when a male does not reap the rewards of their assumed and socially sanctioned primacy (Hatty, 2000: 1–3; Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2015). Given the high rates of suicide or use of lethal force by authorities in response, it has been difficult to develop an accurate profile of the inner machinations of individuals who commit these horrendous crimes. Some alarming data that does appear to be revealing patterns of perpetration demonstrate that 16 per cent of recent shooters had previously been charged with domestic violence offences, with 54 per cent of those targeted being intimate partners, family members and people the perpetrator knew (Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, 2017; Digg, 2017). Admittedly, mass shootings are still very rare incidences, stat...