What does it all mean?

The list of buzzwords that accompany feminist and gender-based analysis is long:
-Intersectionality
-_________-framework
-Androcentric
-Heteronormative
-Privilege/bias
-Hegemonic masculinities/femininities
-etc.

What these terms have in common, aside from a majority of them being rejected by spell-check software, is an unfortunate limitation found in a great deal of academic work: disconnection from reality. Although this type of jargon is meant to (and serves the purpose of) addressing the difficulties in creating a more complete, comprehensive analysis, they can also leave a disembodied impression of the situation on the ground.

The film "Taking Root" (see the trailer and more information here) is more than an explanation of a post-colonial, anti-oppressive, ecological movement. It is a film that documents real lives and histories as they are lived by the women and men of Kenya. The film shows a type of learning and illumination to which much of academia cannot compare. For, it is not only the women in the film who went through a process of learning, but also those who watch it gain an understanding of the implications of gender, ecology, and politics that would not be possible were it not for the embodied wisdom on screen.*

Often, the practical intersections of theory and practice are hard to understand or fully grasp when we are imbued with seemingly limitless PDF's and articles at the stroke of a key. Films and stories of real life narratives can tap in to an essential part of the human intellect that solidify meaning and consequence in a way that data simply cannot. For example, understanding that while under dictator Daniel arap Moi Kenyans had no freedom of assembly is an objectively simple fact to absorb. However, when the images and story of Wangari Maathai's Green Belt Movement are given as an example of non violent defiance, the concepts of authoritarianism, security, justice and political participation come alive with the men and women involved.

As the GBM website states:

The mission of the Green Belt Movement (GBM) is to mobilize community consciousness- using tree planting as an entry point- for self-determination, equity, improved livelihoods and security, and environmental conservation.*

The mention of security is paramount to the new conceptualizations of peacekeeping, and peacebuilding mentioned by Puechguirbal. As Ann Tickner explains, "The achievement of peace, economic justice, and ecological sustainability is inseparable from overcomming social relations of domination and subordination" (As quoted by Nadine Puechguirbal, 163). By highlighting security as a an objective of the movement, a human (or environmental) face can more clearly be attributed to its definition.

Puechguirbal asks what elements are needed to sustain women's involvement in post-conflict societies, and I suggest that part of the answer lies in the above ideas of Wangari Maathai's Green Belt Movement. Change requires a model of education that includes women and men in hands-on learning processes. The experiences of the Kenyan women reveal that learning is not only a classroom experience, but a deeply personal one which can challenge conceptions of self and ones place in society.

In conclusion, to me, the title of the film (Taking Root) is a reminder that we are all rooted in our cultures and places, and that as hard as we try to be global citizens, certain norms, institutions and values are virtually inescapable. Lest we continue to perpetuate and feed the "Tree of Patriarchy", it is imperative that we acknowledge the roots that bind us. We must start with what we know, where we are, and what we have. Taking the initiative to practice what we preach is the only way to give real meaning to the words on the page.

Wangari Muta Mary Jo Maathai (1 April 1940 – 25 September 2011)

-E.

*For further explanation of "embodiment" or the connections of social and ecological justice see Eco-sufficiency and Global Justice: Women Write Political Ecology, A. Salleh (ed.), Pluto Press 2009.

Works Cited:

Puechguirbal, Nadine. “Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding, and Post-Conflict Reconstruction”. Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations, Ed. Laura J. Shepherd, 2010. NY: Routledge.

Taking Root: The Vision of Wangari Maathai. Dir. Alan Dater and Lisa Merton. Marlboro Productions, 2008. DVD.

My Carbon Emissions Could Beat Up Your Carbon Emissions.

(This infographic can be found here)

*See below for comment.

Although the developed world often blames the developing world for environmental degradation, the picture becomes less clear when we ask who in fact the exploitation of the environment is benefiting. Articles and viewpoints such as this one from the libertarian CATO institute seem to think that market processes and the allocation and distribution of goods are inevitable. Indeed he posits that the Third World is more concerned with "following every trendy environmental fad that crosses their path than in promoting the economic freedoms and private property rights necessary to facilitate economic growth". As Ariel Salleh makes clear, this kind of dialogue completely misses the point that the ethos of "economic growth" largely glosses over differences between races, classes, genders and places in assuming that private property is an available and/or desirable ends for which to strive. For is it not private property and global capitalism that drives the kind of materialism making unsustainable production in the global South necessary?

Speaking of materialism: the CATO institute article, as well as Salleh both hint at the idea that post materialism (or affluence) are key to ecological consciousness, although both take complete opposite sides. The point in itself is an interesting one though, and one side is widely shared by many first world women, men, feminists, and otherwise: That the First World is more Eco-conscious that the Third.

It is this logic that would allow political solutions -global programs, international agreements- to presume having the answers (or at least the authority to draft "solutions") without input from those dealing with the environment everyday: namely the meta-industrial labour force around the world. Diplomatic remedies to practical realities negate the expertise inherent those who perform sustainability everyday, not to mention those who are face to face with climate change in a way that those of us separated from natural processes by technology cannot imagine.

All this to say that productivist/conventional economics like those espoused in the CATO article, as well as by self-righteous politicians making "agreements", "accords" and "directives" (no matter how well intentioned) are also reductionist. The logic seeks to perpetuate the American-Dream while chastising it's implementation, to keep the focus of economics squarely on exploitable resources and to not pay for regenerative ones which are seen as "givens", and to leave the invisible hand holding the bag when neo-liberal policies turn out to be detrimental to whole populations.

But the market does make choices of allocation and distribution on it's own, nor does it value or devalue reproductive work. It is us, the people of this world, who make these choices. It is time that each country, big or small, developed or developing, takes responsibility for it's role in climate change and social justice and start to not only re-frame the questions, but to include more actors in the solutions.

-E.

Works Cited:

Salleh, Ariel. "Ecological Debt : Embodied Debt". Eco-Sufficiency & Global Justice: Women write political ecology. Ed. Ariel Salleh, 2009. New York: Pluto Press.

Salleh, Ariel. "From Eco-Sufficiency to Global Justice".Eco-Sufficiency & Global Justice: Women write political ecology. Ed. Ariel Salleh, 2009. New York: Pluto Press.


*The infographic is a good example of how the framing of the question can distort the answer. Who is the biggest emitter of CO2? Does it matter if we all contribute to a narrative where nothing substantial is done about it anyways?

Media and the Message

The use of women's equality/ liberation in the media has indeed been prevalent in the marches to war of both the UK and the US and, as Gallagher notes, there is nothing inherently 'new' in using "the rhetoric of women's rights to peddle colonial expansion"(27), however this acknowledgement somewhat misses the point that women are often used to symbolically represent an ideal that they are at once the subject of and excluded from.

Women the world over are used as symbols of national values externally while being domestically reproached for seeking "special status" when attempting to claim those democratic rights (ex. equal opportunity) and values (ex. inclusion in the workplace). The fact that women are in a much higher proportion in lower level, highly visible roles in television and news-casting is just one exemplar of women's bodies being used symbolically while their opinions and narratives are being left off of the table.

For patriarchal power is not only active in deciding who or what to put on the screen, but is also played out in creating the setting that dissuades or encourages certain voices to speak up. This type of secondary power, or rather the "second face" of power (Bachrach and Barratz), is evidenced in the article when men are seemingly oblivious to women's oppression, and also in the comments below that were found on the YouTube page for the above video.

I would argue that this "second face" is where the "new" media exerts its greatest influence. While conventional mass media inundates the airwaves with biased images and discourses of "gender", "sexuality", "democracy", and "freedom", social media and user generated content are direct input from citizens that legitimate hate and gender based discrimination on a much more personal level. Whereas mass media has legitimacy in its removed position and (arguable) status as a mirror of society, social media reflects the opinions of real individuals from within (what seems like) one's own community.

I have found that comments such as those above are typical of a trend being expressed in response to many feminist, women's oriented, or gender based videos on YouTube and other user-generated social-media. This type of discourse clearly demonstrates how the anonymity allowed for in non-conventional media contributes to an environment that is not conducive to debate, but is rather a continued platform for the status quo.

The most I can muster at the moment for something of a conclusion to this post is a hope that my own contributions to the media/environment are not for naught. And that a community of committed feminists the world over will refuse to be silent or anonymous such as the new platform encourages, but use our real voices, names and faces to stand up and include ourselves whether we're invited or not.

-Elyse.


Works Cited:

Bachrach and Baratz. "Two Faces of Power". The American Political Science Review. 56: 4 (1962): 947-952. Online.

Gallagher, Margaret. "Feminist Issues and the Global Media System". Feminist interventions in international communication: minding the gap. Ed. Katharine Sarikakis and Leslie Regan Shade, 2008. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.