Environment`s gender bias
THIS state-of-the-art report on women and sustainable development, supported by INSTRAW (United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women) is an outcome of several initiatives on the topic -- most specifically, INSTRAW's programme on Gender, Environment and Sustainable Development, launched in 1990.
Women, the Environment and Sustainable Development provides scope for reflection and action and a framework which, among other things, suggests that the different ways in which individuals approach the subject depends on their own situation. The analysis owes much to feminist thought, and has specific policy recommendations and research methodologies.
Alongside the women, environment and development (WED) debate, the authors explore the feminist critique of science, feminism, alternative development, environmental reforms within political, economic and development organisations, deep ecology, social ecology and ecofeminism.
The authors say that they became convinced that the sex of the actors is not the most relevant aspect of the interconnections between women, environment and sustainable development. Although women treat the environment and the process of development differently, the relationship between them should be analysed in detail. The authors maintain that while the way women are affected by the environment and the strategies they use to counter it are gender specific, their womanhood alone does not qualify them to manage the environment better than anyone else.
Further, the authors do not see men as culpable for the subjugation of women, despite that much of the feminist analysis in the WED debate does. The authors warn about "reverse hierarchy" -- which suggests that men, who are dominant, must step back and let women determine the future.
As feminists in the WED movement, the authors of the book highlight the findings of feminist epistemology about science, power and domination. Theory within the framework of Western science is part of the multiple crises, and feminist critics of science believe that in order to effect change, epistemologies -- or the terms for the production of knowledge -- must be addressed.
On feminism, critiques of science and the relationship between women and nature, the authors conclude that they recognise that women and nature are simultaneously subjugated. If women take themselves seriously as social agents, their action towards this double subjugation is rooted not so much in their equation with nature, but in taking responsibility for their lives and environment.
Unfortunately, the book is weak on a very basic and important aspect of women and society: reproduction. A brief mention is made of population control programmes in the South and criticising their adoption by some NGOs. Many in the women's movement, North and South, have proposed the need for the population discussion to be had within a broader discussion of reproductive rights. Others have rejected outright population planning as a Northern conspiracy to disguise the North's consumption. A feminist position that genuinely reflects the needs for women's reproduction to be connected to their production is still missing, especially from the WED debate, and from this book as well.
The authors conclude, not surprisingly, that the task at hand is to create alliances -- between women, environmentalists and other social movements, across institutional and disciplinary boundaries, on the basis of respect for each others' identities, specific struggles and different analytical positions. But this task is not easy. UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) is an example of an international activity that brought together various constituencies. How effective was this experience and what could have been done better? Despite the fact that there was a strong NGO presence and a stronger WED presence, what is the followup?
The book is a valuable resource for newcomers to the topic. For those who have grown geriatric in development work, and fail to understand what the feminists are carping about, it is worth a read. Having 4 authors is a plus when it comes to analyses and planning a book, but a drawback when editing. This is reflected in the unevenness of the chapters -- some analytical, some anecdotal, and others a mere listing of historical factors.
---Anita Anand is the director of the Women's Feature Service, New Delhi.