"Applied Science, Faculty of"@en . "Community and Regional Planning (SCARP), School of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Boucher, Priscilla Mae"@en . "2009-06-02T18:56:25Z"@en . "1998"@en . "Doctor of Philosophy - PhD"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "In the context of a deepening environmental crisis, there are growing calls for a\r\nplanning framework informed by environmental ethics. In response, I locate this research in\r\nthe ecocentric discourse and argue the need to challenge both ecological destruction and\r\npatriarchy. I raise feminist concerns about the marginalization of women from the processes\r\nby which we come to understand and respond to environmental concerns, and adopt a\r\nfeminist methodology, qualitative methods, and a case study strategy to explore the\r\nsubjective dimension of women's environmental activism in the context of growing concerns\r\nabout the forests of Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. The purpose of this research is to\r\nidentify: (a) the critical insights that these women bring to their activism; (b) the patriarchal\r\nbarriers they face in the course of their activism; and (c) the implications of the research\r\nfindings for an action-oriented ecofeminism and ethics-based planning for sustainability.\r\nIn-depth interviews were conducted with 20 women and their feedback (transcripts,\r\nworkshop, draft research findings) incorporated into the final report. The research findings\r\nconfirm that these women have critical insights to offer and that patriarchal barriers frustrate\r\nbut do not totally constrain their activism. These women offer insight into the complex set of\r\nvalues and structures that protect the status quo, and the forest industry in particular, expose\r\npatriarchal structures and values that constrain their activism and protect the interests of a\r\nmale-dominated industry, and suggest a normative foundation for sustainability that takes\r\nseriously the well-being of human and nonhuman nature, male and female. In analysing these findings, I argue for an action-based ecofeminism that moves\r\nbeyond ideal notions of the ecological self, promotes a public ethic of care, challenges both\r\nconstructs and structures, and critically supports the emergence of women's insights and\r\ncontributions from the economic, political, and cultural margins. Furthermore, I argue that\r\nthese women's insights and experiences have significant substantive and procedural\r\nimplications for planning. I propose an ethics-based planning framework committed to the\r\necological and social integrity of 'place' and to the well-being of all who live there\u00E2\u0080\u0094human\r\nand nonhuman, male and female. In challenging the status quo, this ethics-based planning\r\ninvolves struggles with both external structures and internally held values. In doing so, it\r\nlinks the political to the personal and contributes to both structural and personal\r\ntransformation."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/8565?expand=metadata"@en . "18874745 bytes"@en . "application/pdf"@en . "E C O L O G Y , FEMINISM, AND PLANNING: LESSONS F R O M W O M E N ' S E N V I R O N M E N T A L ACTIVISM IN C L A Y O Q U O T SOUND by PRISCILLA M A E B O U C H E R B.Comm., Dalhousie University, 1974 M.E.S. , York University, 1990 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E O F D O C T O R O F PHILOSOPHY in T H E F A C U L T Y O F G R A D U A T E STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis jisconforming to jttye,required stanM^rd T H E UNIVERSITY O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A August 1997 \u00C2\u00A9 Priscilla Mae Boucher, 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date Ut)S_ IT 111, DE-6 (2788) ABSTRACT In the context of a deepening environmental crisis, there are growing calls for a planning framework informed by environmental ethics. In response, I locate this research in the ecocentric discourse and argue the need to challenge both ecological destruction and patriarchy. I raise feminist concerns about the marginalization of women from the processes by which we come to understand and respond to environmental concerns, and adopt a feminist methodology, qualitative methods, and a case study strategy to explore the subjective dimension of women's environmental activism in the context of growing concerns about the forests of Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia. The purpose of this research is to identify: (a) the critical insights that these women bring to their activism; (b) the patriarchal barriers they face in the course of their activism; and (c) the implications of the research findings for an action-oriented ecofeminism and ethics-based planning for sustainability. In-depth interviews were conducted with 20 women and their feedback (transcripts, workshop, draft research findings) incorporated into the final report. The research findings confirm that these women have critical insights to offer and that patriarchal barriers frustrate but do not totally constrain their activism. These women offer insight into the complex set of values and structures that protect the status quo, and the forest industry in particular, expose patriarchal structures and values that constrain their activism and protect the interests of a male-dominated industry, and suggest a normative foundation for sustainability that takes seriously the well-being of human and nonhuman nature, male and female. ii In analysing these findings, I argue for an action-based ecofeminism that moves beyond ideal notions of the ecological self, promotes a public ethic of care, challenges both constructs and structures, and critically supports the emergence of women's insights and contributions from the economic, political, and cultural margins. Furthermore, I argue that these women's insights and experiences have significant substantive and procedural implications for planning. I propose an ethics-based planning framework committed to the ecological and social integrity of 'place' and to the well-being of all who live there\u00E2\u0080\u0094human and nonhuman, male and female. In challenging the status quo, this ethics-based planning involves struggles with both external structures and internally held values. In doing so, it links the political to the personal and contributes to both structural and personal transformation. i n TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i List o f Tables v i List of Figures v i i Acknowledgements v i i i Chapter Part I. Introducing the Research 1. Ecology, Feminism and Planning 2 1.1 Planning in the Context of the Environmental Crisis 2 1.2 Learning From Environmental Ethics 5 1.3 Introducing This Research 8 2. Sustainability as Contested Terrain: Locating This Research in the Ecocentric Discourse 14 2.1 The Contested Terrain of Sustainability Discourses 14 2.2 A n Overview of the Ecocentric Discourse 24 2.3 Implications for an Ethics-Based Planning 58 3. Raising Feminist Concerns: The Cal l for A Feminist Re-Framing of the Environmental Crisis 60 3.1 Raising Feminist Concerns 60 3.2 Ecofeminism and the 'Crisis of Culture' 67 3.3 The Cal l for an Action-Oriented Ecofeminism 94 3.4 Learning From Women's Environmental Act ivism 104 3.5 Defining This Research 122 4. Recovering Women's Voices: Methods 125 4.1 Choosing a Method: Carrying Out the Research 125 4.2 Ensuring Trustworthiness1 of the Research 138 4.3 Analysing and Presenting the Research Findings 154 i v Part II. The Case Study: Exploring the Subjective Dimension of Women's Environmental Act ivism in Clayoquot Sound 5. A n Introduction to Clayoquot Sound 160 5.1 Setting the Global Context 161 5.2 Setting the Provincial Context 165 5.3 A n Introduction to Clayoquot Sound 173 5.4 Growing Concerns and Controversy 183 5.5 A n Introduction to the Women Interviewed 188 6. From Fragmentation to Connection 192 7. From Unsustainable Livelihoods and Lifestyles to L iv ing Gently on the Planet 225 8. From Failed Processes to Community-Based Decision-Making 260 9. From Destructive Values and Ways of Being to Life-Affirming Values and 'Gentle' Ways of Being 303 Part III. Reflections on the Research Findings 10. The Significance and Implications of the Research Findings 338 10.1 Critical Insights and Patriarchal Barriers 339 10.2 Toward an Action-Oriented Ecofeminism 353 10.3 Toward an Ethics-Based Planning for Sustainability 361 References 373 Appendix A 406 A - l Interview Guide 407 A - 2 Participant Review Form 408 v LIST O F T A B L E S Table 1 A Brief Profile of the Women Interviewed 190 Table 2 A Cultural Critique of What Is and What Ought To Be 344 v i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 A Map of Clayoquot Sound 174 Figure 2 Ethics-Based Planning for Sustainability: The External and Internal Dimensions of A Power-Sensitive Process 365 v i i A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S In everything we do, we depend on those around us for support, understanding, and guidance. To that end, I would like to acknowledge all those who have supported me through this process. Firstly, I thank all of the women who so generously gave of their time to share with me their insights and experiences, their joys and frustrations. Without you, this research could not have been done. Secondly, I thank my daughter.Karla for her love and patience through the many years of graduate school, and through this research process in particular. I know that, even as you tried to understand and support my work, it was not always easy to share me with a computer, books, and external deadlines. Thirdly, I want to acknowledge the circle of women~Pam Rogers, Linda Irwin, Cindy Sutherland, Janet Thorne, Susanna Puppato, Joan McMahon , Heather Pritchard, Loralee Delbrouck\u00E2\u0080\u0094who have been an important source of support, inspiration, and strength over these years. Fourthly, I thank my committee, Wi l l i am Rees, Peter Boothroyd, Penny Gurstein, and Pam Courtenay Ha l l for providing the 'space' and support for this research in the halls of academe. I am also grateful to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for financially supporting my research. Finally, I wish to thank the forests for being there. Without you, this planet and our lives would be devastating. v i i i P A R T I INTRODUCING T H E R E S E A R C H 1 C H A P T E R 1 E C O L O G Y , FEMINISM, AND PLANNING 1.1 Planning in the Context of the Environmental Crisis In his overview of four major planning traditions\u00E2\u0080\u0094social reform, policy analysis, social learning, and social mobilization'\u00E2\u0080\u0094John Friedmann (1987, 73-4) argues that all four \"revolve around one core concern: how knowledge should properly be linked to action.\" Given this central concern, it is not unreasonable to expect that planning has an important role to play in the resolution of environmental problems. In the midst of a deepening environmental crisis and urgent calls for action, the challenge for planning, according to Friedmann's definition, would be to properly link knowledge to actions that contribute to long-term sustainability. But while Friedmann does not specifically examine planning 1 Social reform seeks to apply \"scientific knowledge to public affairs\" in order to improve the effectiveness of state interventions (Friedmann 1987, 76). Policy analysis applies scientific knowledge and the tools of neoclassical economics to rational decision-making in order to provide guidance to large corporations and the state (78-9). Social learning seeks to \"overcome the contradictions between ... knowing and acting\" and to bring about change through social dialogue and active engagement in the dialectical process of learning by doing (81-2). Social mobilization, a decidedly political project, challenges domination and oppression and seeks structural change and social transformation through \"direct collective action 'from below'\" and \"scientific analysis, particularly in the form of social learning\" (83). 2 responses to environmental problems, his overview of two centuries of planning suggests that there are two radically different responses to this planning challenge (38-9, 76-85). Social reform and policy analysis would tend to provide top-down societal guidance in the search for solutions that address environmental problems within the context of existing social structures. Social learning and social mobilization would tend to call for social transformation and adopt a participatory approach in the search for solutions that challenge the status quo. These two radically different planning responses to environmental problems\u00E2\u0080\u0094societal guidance and social transformation\u00E2\u0080\u0094are similar to those identified within the environmental literature. In Chapter 2,1 examine two sharply divergent perspectives on the environmental crisis. While both agree on the seriousness of the environmental crisis and on the need for action, they differ radically in how they understand and respond to this crisis. Those who see the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of technique' seek top-down solutions that may reform, but never fundamentally challenge, existing structures and values. Those who frame the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of culture' call for the active engagement of all in transforming cultural values and structures that are at the root of the crisis. In considering these divergent framings, I locate my own research in the context of the ecocentric discourse which understands the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of culture.' In doing so, the question arises as to which planning traditions are most consistent with this positioning. In comparing the planning ideologies of societal guidance and social transformation, it is clear that social reform and policy analysis are most consistent with the 'crisis of technique' perspective; 3 social learning and social mobilization with the 'crisis of culture.' What is not clear, however, is whether the planning traditions of social learning and social mobilization sufficiently challenge culturally dominant values and assumptions that contribute significantly to the environmental crisis. John Friedmann (1987, 311), for example, concludes his overview of planning by arguing that societal guidance in the form of top-down planning by the state is incapable of responding effectively to the crises before us. In challenging the notion that planning is \"exclusively a function of the state\" (298), he calls for the recovery of political community and a radical planning informed by the traditions of social learning and social mobilization (297-308, 389-412). The central project of this radical planning is \"the emancipation of humanity from social oppression (my emphasis)\" (301). Without dismissing the importance of social emancipation, this perspective ignores the oppression of nonhuman nature. A review of the emancipatory literature on the environmental crisis reveals what Robyn Eckersley (1992, 26) calls an \"anthropocentric/ecocentric cleavage.\" The first approach ... [seeks] new opportunities for human emancipation and fulfilment in an ecologically sustainable society. The second approach pursues these same goals in the context of a broader notion of emancipation that also recognizes the moral standing of the nonhuman world and seeks to ensure that it, too, may unfold in its many diverse ways. The first perpetuates the dominant values and assumptions of western culture, the second seeks to transform them. Within the environmental literature, there have been growing concerns about the cultural roots of the environmental crisis. While the 'crisis of technique' fails to challenge the dominant values and assumptions of western culture, the 'crisis of culture' calls for a 4 fundamental rethinking of what it means to be human in the context of a nature to which we belong and on which we depend. Emerging out of the concrete environmental problems facing us today, the growing literature of environmental ethics urges a fundamental transformation in how we, as members of western culture, think and act. In contrast, the planning literature has paid scarce attention to the values and assumptions shaping planning responses to environmental problems (Beatley 1989; Jacobs 1995; Martin & Beatley 1993; Rees 1995a). Concerned that planning continues to reproduce rather than resolve environmental problems, there are growing calls for a planning framework informed by environmental ethics (Aberley 1994; Beatley 1989; Beavis 1991; Birkeland 1991, 1993a, 1993b; Jacobs 1995; Martin & Beatley 1993; Rees 1995a; Gardner & Roseland 1989; Sells 1991). In the context of a deepening environmental crisis, environmental ethics has much to teach us. 1.2 Learning From Environmental Ethics Timothy Beatley (1989, 2) offers several reasons why environmental ethics \"has particular importance and relevance to planners and the field of planning.\" First, there is a clear and immediate need for those involved in the area of \"environmental planning\" to develop a theoretical and moral basis to support and guide their activities. Second and more fundamentally, virtually all facets of planning ... have direct impacts on the natural environment and as such confront the issue of environmental ethics. Environmental ethics, he argues, can help planners \"to develop their moral positions toward and about the environment\" (27). Despite the relevance of environmental ethics to planning, 5 a subsequent review of North American planning curricula produced disappointing results. In summarizing their research findings, Evelyn Martin & Timothy Beatley (1993, 123) conclude, it is discouraging that, after some two decades of highly prominent theoretical and practical contributions to the subject of environmental ethics by other fields, few planning programs seem to see the need to extensively examine the value or ethical presuppositions and foundations of land planning\u00E2\u0080\u0094especially of environmental planning. Despite worsening environmental problems and a growing literature on environmental ethics, they found \"a paucity of planning literature devoted directly to environmental ethics\" (118) and only a handful of planning programs teaching it. Where it is taught, the curricula tend to cover \"more traditional anthropocentric and utilitarian perspectives\" with less attention to the emerging theories of \"biocentrism, ecocentrism, deep ecology, and ecofeminism\" (124). Insisting on the relevance of these emerging theories, they argue, The unsustainability of many of our human settlement patterns and practices necessitates a much more profound understanding of our moral obligations to other people, other l iving creatures, and the earth. Planning schools have a responsibility to engage themselves and their students in this ethical debate, and to lay a normative foundation to guide professional practice (125). Noting that both planning and environmental ethics \"are born from concerns about how to act in the world\" Harvey Jacobs argues that these emerging theories challenge planning with their insistence that \"root questions must be posed i f an action i f going to be effective, equitable, and sustainable\" (1995, 99, 86). In examining \"three of the more provocative strains within contemporary environmental ethics, those being deep ecology, ecofeminism, bioregionalism\" (85), he argues that they challenge 6 the legitimacy of an abstract or contextless planning theory, the general anthropocentric orientation of planning theory and practice, the relationship of means (or process) and ends (or outcomes), and the loss of \"place\" as a specific basis for planning (95-6). While all three streams share these concerns, they differ in the emphasis they place on each. Deep ecology highlights the fact that \"planning is disturbingly utilitarian and anthropocentric in its orientation\" and \"raises the issue of how to structure planning so that the nonhuman species ... receive a voice\" (96-7). Ecofeminism emphasizes the importance of process. Insisting that \"the very process of how we do things ... is intimately connected to the types of solutions that are crafted,\" ecofeminism calls for \"processes that are more encompassing and empowering,\" and \"suggests a more democratic conception of knowledge and expertise\" with planners as \"facilitators and legitimators\" (97). Bioregionalism places great emphasis on the importance of \"learning to live in place\" and \"the importance of [applying] intimate knowledge about place ... in the design of all the aspects of everyday life.\" In contrast to abstract and contextless planning, bioregionalism insists that planning \"be based on the integrity of [physical and sociocultural] regions\" (97-8). Arguing that these challenges to planning \"should be taken quite seriously,\" Jacobs concludes -Contemporary environmental philosophy wants us, implores us, challenges us, not to be afraid to ask fundamental questions. ... [T]o the extent that we do not pose these underlying questions and then act upon their implications, our planning deeds may be irrelevant at best and counterproductive at worst. This is not the easy path; contemporary environmental philosophy would have us believe, though, that there is no other i f our goal is an effective, long-term, sustainable and equitable planning (99). Some planners are beginning to ask these fundamental questions (Aberley 1994; Beavis 1991; Birkeland 1991, 1993a, 1993b; Rees 1995a; Gardner & Roseland 1989; Sells 7 1991). In examining community strategies for equitable sustainable development, Julia Gardner and Mark Roseland (1989) identify ecofeminism, social ecology, bioregionalism, and deep ecology as some of the \"uncommon wisdom\" available to us in the development of these strategies. Janis Birkeland (1991, 1993b) brings an ecofeminist perspective to her critique of mainstream land use planning and environmental decision-making and calls for \"the collective development of an ethics-based environmental decision-making system\" (1993b, 29). A s she insists, If the fundamental purpose of Planning is to design a sustainable society, the basic function of Planning would be to ensure the prerequisites of sustainability; the preservation of cultural and natural heritage, peace, health, social justice and a safe, secure future (30). This ethics-based planning would be preventative in orientation (risk-aversive, conflict-resolving, keeping options open) and participatory in \"determining collective social, economic and environmental goals in the long term public interest\" (30). She warns that adopting an \"open, educative and participatory process\" presents a dilemma \"as humanity is presently steeped in anthropocentric/Patriarchal values\" (31). Nevertheless, she argues, it is only through such processes that we can begin to challenge and transform these underlying values and assumptions. 1.3 Introducing This Research Although the development of an ethics-based planning framework for sustainability is still in its infancy, the literature to date suggests that such a framework challenges the 8 epistemological, procedural, and ethical foundations of mainstream planning. This research seeks to advance our understanding of what such a planning framework would look like. I do this by drawing on the ecocentric literature, particularly ecofeminism, and on the insights and experiences of environmentally concerned and active women. I also draw selectively from feminist and feminist planning literatures. In the process, I explore feminist concerns about the marginalization of women from the processes by which we come to understand and respond to environmental problems, and contribute to the development of an action-oriented ecofeminism. In proposing an ecofeminist planning framework, this research contributes to the development of an ethics-based planning that challenges the oppression of human and nonhuman nature, male and female, and in all our differences. It also enhances our understanding of women's environmental activism in the context of western culture. Drawing on the Ecocentric Literature Given the lack of attention paid to environmental ethics within the planning literature, I have chosen to step outside of planning in order to explore four fundamental questions: (a) what is the nature of the environmental crisis; (b) what are the appropriate responses to this crisis; (c) who are the relevant actors in bringing about a resolution to this crisis; and (d) what knowledge is relevant to the decisions at hand? In Chapter 2,1 locate my research in the ecocentric discourse and draw on the literatures of deep ecology, social ecology, bioregionalism, and ecofeminism to explore four essential features of an ecocentric perspective: (a) the critique of western industrial culture; (b) the cultivation of an ecocentric 9 culture; (c) a participatory and democratic ethos; and (d) an expanded epistemology. A n ethics-based planning consistent with an ecocentric perspective would: (a) challenge culturally dominant structures and values, (b) contribute to the cultivation of an ecocentric culture committed to the well-being of human and nonhuman nature; (c) assume a participatory and emancipatory stance, and (d) be open to all knowledge that is relevant to the decisions at hand. Ultimately, this ethics-based planning encourages the active engagement of all in translating all relevant ways of knowing and ecocentric sensibilities into actions that sustain the well-being of human and nonhuman life on this planet. In the final chapter, I draw on the research findings to expand on this ecocentric planning framework. Raising Feminist Concerns Feminist planners have increasingly drawn attention to the androcentric bias of mainstream planning theory and practice (Eichler 1995; Greed 1994; MacGregor 1995; Mi l roy 1991; Sandercock & Forsyth 1992). As Leonie Sandercock & A n n Forsyth (1992, 55) put it, In mainstream planning theory women have scarcely been seen as subjects of theory. ... The paradigms on which planning and theorizing about it have been based are informed by characteristics traditionally associated with the masculine in our society. There is a need to rethink the foundations of the discipline, its epistemology, and its various methodologies. In developing an ethics-based planning framework consistent with an ecocentric perspective it is important to incorporate a feminist analysis to ensure that patriarchal values and structures are not reproduced. In Chapter 3,1 reflect on the urgent call for action emerging 10 within the sustainability discourse, and on the ecocentric call for cultural transformation, and raise feminist concerns about the marginalization of women's insights and experiences from male-dominated theories and practices. In searching for a transformative feminist framework that challenges both ecological destruction and the oppression of women, I examine feminist and ecofeminist literatures. To varying degrees, traditional feminist frameworks fail to challenge the values and structures that perpetuate the domination of nonhuman nature. They do, however, offer an analysis of patriarchal structures. Ecofeminism introduces feminist insights into our understanding of the environmental crisis and promises to provide the best framework. However, some ecofeminist theory has developed primarily within the ideological realm and has paid little attention to the structures that enable the domination of human and nonhuman nature to continue. In response, I support the call for the development of an action-oriented ecofeminist framework that draws on both feminist and ecofeminist literatures and on the felt concerns and lived experiences of environmentally active women. While the literature offers powerful critiques of western values and structures and can suggest the way forward, the insights and experiences of environmentally concerned and active women have much to teach us about the challenges that face us along the way. Learning From Environmentally Concerned and Active Women In defining a gender research agenda for planning, Sandercock and Forsyth (1992, 54) call for research on both \"feminist planning practice and the relationship of feminist activism to planning.\" With the bulk of feminist planning literature focused on the human dimensions 11 of built and urban environments, however, little attention has been paid to the contributions that environmentally active women are making to how we understand and respond to environmental problems. A review of the environmental literature suggests that women's environmental concerns and activism are extensive and that women are making significant contributions to a growing grassroots environmental movement. The literature also suggests that patriarchy plays a role in marginalizing women's environmental concerns and insights and in frustrating their activism. Despite the extent and significance of women's environmental concern and activism, there is a lack of in-depth research into the subjective dimensions of women's environmental activism, particularly in the context of western industrial societies. A s a result, both the critical insights that women bring to their activism and the patriarchal barriers that women face in the course of their activism remain under-explored. In the North, most of the research to date has focused narrowly on women's activism around toxic wastes and there is a scarcity of research on women's environmental activism arising out of concern for nonhuman nature. In order to learn from the insights and experiences of women who are concerned about and active around concerns for nonhuman nature, I adopt a feminist methodology, in-depth qualitative methods, and an exploratory case study research strategy. In this case, I explore women's environmental activism in the context of growing concerns about the coastal temperate rainforests of Clayoquot Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island, Brit ish Columbia. In Chapter 4,1 describe and reflect on the research process. 12 In Part II of this research, I present the research findings. In Chapter 5,1 introduce both the women with whom I had in-depth conversations, and the global, provincial, and local contexts within which their environmental concerns and activism have emerged. In Chapters 6 to 9,1 present four major themes around which women framed their concerns, visions, and activism. These four themes are: (1) social and ecological fragmentation and the longing for connection and wholeness; (2) unsustainable livelihoods and lifestyles and the longing for gentle ways of l iving; (3) failed processes and the longing for inclusive and community-based processes; (4) destructive ways of being and the longing for life-affirming values and gentle ways of being. In each chapter, I alternate women's own stories with my personal reflections which draw on both their stories and relevant literatures. In Part III, I discuss the significance of the research findings in light of feminist concerns about the marginalization of women, and discuss the implications of the findings for an action-oriented ecofeminism and an ethics-based planning. 13 C H A P T E R 2 SUSTAINABILITY AS C O N T E S T E D T E R R A I N : L O C A T I N G THIS R E S E A R C H IN T H E E C O C E N T R I C DISCOURSE 2.1 The Contested Terrain Of Sustainability Discourses I begin this chapter by asking how planning can best respond to growing environmental problems so as to contribute to long-term sustainability. In searching through the literature on sustainability and sustainable development, however, I find no easy answers. A s anyone familiar with the discourses on the environmental crisis and sustainability w i l l agree, this is contested terrain (Eckersley 1992; M i t l i n 1992; Redclift 1987; Rees 1989, 1995a). Among those who agree that there is an environmental crisis, there are disagreements as to both the seriousness and nature of this crisis. Diana M i t l i n (1992), for example, points out that within the discourses on sustainability, there is little agreement as to what this means, how it can be achieved, or what the root causes of unsustainability are. Given the contested nature of this discourse, it is necessary to locate my own research within it in order to answer the planning question I have posed. To locate this research within the 14 context of a burgeoning body of literature, I begin by addressing two fundamental questions: (1) is there an environmental crisis; and i f so (2) what is the nature of this crisis? Is There An Environmental Crisis? In November 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) issued a warning to all of humanity, listing signs of critical environmental stress and warning of impending ecological collapse and vast human misery i f current practices remained unchecked. B y December 1992, \"The Warning\" had been signed \"by over 1500 scientists from 64 countries, including the majority of the living Nobel Laureates in the sciences\" (UCS 1992, 5). Together, these scientists have called on the world's peoples to jo in with them in bringing about the urgent fundamental changes required \"to avoid the collision our present course w i l l bring about\" (5-6). \"The Warning\" is but one of many urgent calls for action that have been issued over the past quarter of a century. A s Robyn Eckersley (1992, 11-13) points out, although warnings of ecological degradation can be traced back to the 1950s, it was the publication of two reports in 1972 that brought to the world's attention both the seriousness and global dimensions of environmental problems. The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972), and The Ecologist magazine's Blueprint for Survival (Goldsmith et al. 1972), although different in many respects, shared the perspective that the environmental crisis facing us was a 'crisis of survival'. Exponential growth in resource consumption and human population within the context of a finite planet posed serious threats to both the earth's support systems and to the survival of humanity. 15 These warnings have not been without their detractors. Resistance to the framing of the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of survival' has appeared mainly in the form of \"technological optimism\" (Costanza 1989, 2-3). In denying the seriousness of the situation, various authors have questioned the methodological rigour of the research, challenged the notion of finite limits to growth, resisted the call for fundamental changes to existing practices, and offered a myriad of \"technological fixes\" (Eckersley 1992, 12). Behind this technological optimism is a deep faith that any perceived limits or threats of future scarcity can be circumvented through human ingenuity and technological and scientific advances (Simon 1980; Simon & Kahn 1984). Robert Costanza (1989) contrasts this \"technological optimism\" with an opposing \"technological pessimism\" which questions this faith in technological solutions and assumes that there are real limits to growth. After 15 years and thousands of studies, however, he admits that \"there is still an enormous amount of uncertainty about the impacts of energy and resource constraints\" (5). Given this level of uncertainty, those who see the environmental crisis as real argue that the prudent course is to err on the side of caution and to pursue risk-aversive, rather than risk-taking courses of action (Costanza 1989; Pearce, Markandya & Barbier 1989; Rees 1995a). A s Costanza (1989, 4) argues, \"If... we pursue the optimistic policy and the world turns out to conform more closely to the pessimistic technological assumptions then the result would be 'Disaster'.\" This call for \"prudent pessimism\" (Pearce, Markandya, & Barbier 1989, 10), and the framing of environmental problems as a 'crisis of survival' have been reinforced by many studies and reports. 16 The Worldwatch Institute, for instance, has been publishing its annual State of the World report since 1984. On the occasion of its fifth report in 1988, a review of the earth's vital signs revealed record rates of deforestation, desertification and soil erosion, as well as disturbing signs of species extinction, toxic contamination of land and water, ozone depletion, and global warming. A s the authors commented, \"The readings are not reassuring\" (Brown & Flavin 1988, 3). Five years later, the foreword to the tenth State of the World report confirmed that, despite some promising new trends, \"all the major trends of degradation that existed a decade ago have continued\" (Brown, Flavin & Postel 1993, xvii) . Cit ing unsustainable economic practices as significant contributors to these trends, and noting the linkages between economic unsustainability, ecological degradation, and social disintegration, Lester Brown (1993, 21) issued an urgent call for swift and fundamental economic transformation. A s he warned, If we fail to convert our self-destructing economy into one that is environmentally sustainable, future generations wi l l be overwhelmed by environmental degradation and social disintegration. Simply stated, i f our generation does not turn things around, our children may not have the option of doing so. The challenge of developing an environmentally sustainable economy has been central to the emerging field of ecological economics (Costanza 1989; Daly & Cobb 1989; Rees 1988, 1989, 1992, 1995a, 1995b; Wackernagel & Rees 1996); and within the international literature challenging the dominant western development model (Ecologist 1993; Ekins & Max-Neef 1992; Henderson 1991; Korten 1990; Shiva 1988; Waring 1988). 17 The urgent and interlocking nature of the ecological crisis was an over-riding theme of Our Common Future, the influential publication of the World Commission on Environment and Development ( W C E D 1987). A s the Commission points out, \"Ecology and economy are becoming ever more interwoven\u00E2\u0080\u0094locally, regionally, nationally, and globally\u00E2\u0080\u0094 into a seamless net of causes and effects\" (5). Noting the complex linkages between environmental stresses, economic development, and social and political inequities, they call for a new approach to development \"that integrates production with resource conservation and enhancement, and that links both to the provision for all of an adequate livelihood base and equitable access to resources\" (40). For the Commission, the concept of sustainable development embraces both intra- and inter-generational equity in that it \"seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future\" (40). To avert ecological, economic, and social disasters, however, the Commission insists on the need for \"decisive political action now\" (1). While these and other warnings differ both in their descriptions of the crises and the prescriptions for effective action, they share the following assumptions: (1) the ecological crisis is real and of global dimensions; (2) the ecological crisis is intimately linked to, and cannot be dealt with in isolation from, complex economic, social, and political issues; (3) the ecological crisis threatens the well-being and survival of humanity; and (4) urgent action is required to avert ecological collapse and human misery. Hope, for the authors of these reports, lies in the rising numbers of the world's people who acknowledge and are concerned about this ecological crisis, and on the successful translation of this concern into effective 18 actions. In lamenting on their failure to produce an upbeat State of the World report, for instance, the Worldwatch Institute makes the following observation: Unfortunately, not enough people are working yet to reverse the trends of decline for us to write such a report. We are falling far short in our efforts. On the plus side, concern about the earth's future is continuing to rise throughout the world, giving us hope that the degradation w i l l one day be reversed (Brown, Flavin & Postel 1993, xvi i ) . For those worried about the signs of ecological collapse, lack of widespread concern is a serious barrier to sustainability (Macy 1983; Milbrath 1989; Postel 1992). Ralph Milbrath (1989), for instance, points out that many people either deny that there is a problem, or deny the seriousness of the problem. The problem, he argues, is not a lack of information. \"Many studies have been conducted, the results have been publicized, and the information is literally thrust at people who wi l l listen\" (17). Despite the availability of this information, many people are choosing not to listen, or choosing not to take the information seriously. Sandra Postel (1992, 4) points out that this denial \"often runs particularly deep among those with heavy stakes in the status quo, including the political and business leaders with power to shape the global agenda.\" For Postel and others who see the seriousness of the environmental crisis, the planet's fate is linked to our ability to overcome the paralysing effects of denial, and to move from concern to action. A s she remarks, \"Extraordinary change is possible when enough courageous people grasp the need for it and become wil l ing to act\" (Postel 1992, 8). Her call to action, however, raises the question of which actions are most appropriate and effective. A s the next section shows, how we frame the environmental crisis shapes how we understand and respond to it. 19 The Nature of the Environmental Crisis The naming or framing of a concern contains within it the power to both describe and prescribe (Janeway 1980; Schon 1980). How we name or frame the environmental crisis, then, is of tremendous importance for it shapes both our understanding of the crisis and our prescriptions for appropriate action. In examining the framing of environmental crises, authors have tended to distinguish between two sharply divergent perspectives. A s examples we have Timothy O'Riordan's (1981) distinction between technocentric and ecocentric modes, David Orr's (1992) distinction between technological sustainability and ecological sustainability, Arne Naess' (1993) distinction between shallow and deep ecology, and Robyn Eckersley's (1992) location of major streams of environmentalism on a continuum between the two poles of anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. These different framings of the environmental crisis provide radically different answers to the following questions: (a) what is the nature of the crisis; (b) what are the appropriate responses to this crisis; (c) who are the relevant actors in bringing about a resolution to this crisis; and (d) what knowledge is relevant to the decisions at hand? Underlying these two perspectives are (e) fundamentally different beliefs about the nature of reality and the place of humankind in it. A s O'Riordan (1981, 2) cautions, however, we need to be careful not to \"divide the world neatly\" into these two camps but rather to see these two perspectives as representing the two poles on a continuum of responses to environmental problems. With that in mind, it is worth identifying the fundamental differences between these perspectives. 20 A crisis of technique. Those who frame the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of technique' seek to resolve environmental problems within the context of existing belief systems and structures.' This technocratic, technological, shallow, or anthropocentric approach to environmental problems argues that environmental problems are the result of poor technique\u00E2\u0080\u0094poor planning, inadequate management, inappropriate technology, or bad science. Solutions are to be found in 'doing things better'\u00E2\u0080\u0094in improved science and technology, rational planning, better policies, and effective management. The proposed solutions may reform, but do not fundamentally challenge, existing socio-political structures and belief systems. Responsibility for solving environmental problems is placed in the hands of political and professional experts/elites who regard public participation as an intrusion by the \"uninformed\" (O'Riordan 1981, 13). The 'informed' are the holders of rational and value-free scientific and technical knowledge who, with this knowledge, are able to \"predict, manipulate, and control\" (Eckersley 1992, 51). Underlying this framing is a worldview that is anthropocentric and mechanistic. Anthropocentrism places humans and human culture at the centre of moral consideration. Humans are seen as separate from and superior to the rest of nature. Consequently the well-being of humans takes precedence over the well-being of nonhuman nature, and \"nonhuman nature is there for no other purpose but to serve humankind\" (Eckersley 1992, 51). Mechanism sees reality as made up of discrete atomic parts that can be understood in isolation from their context, and that function according to 1 By structures I mean those sets of instituted policies, procedures, roles, and condoned behaviours that serve to produce and reproduce existing social relations and practices. Bowles and Gintis (1986, 98) describe these as the \"rules of the game\" that structure social action. As human actors, we are both shaped by and shapers of these rules (Berger& Luckmann 1985; Bowles & Gintis 1986). 21 mechanical laws. This mechanical framework views nature \"as a system of dead, inert particles moved by external, rather than inherent forces\" (Merchant 1980, 193) and sanctions the management and control of nature for the benefit of humankind. A crisis of culture. Those who frame the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of culture' argue that environmental problems cannot be resolved within the context of existing belief systems and structures. This ecocentric, ecological, or deep approach to the environmental crisis locates the roots of the crisis in the values, beliefs, and structures of western industrial culture. Long-lasting solutions to environmental problems wi l l require radical changes to how we think and act. Central to these changes is a fundamental re-thinking of what it is to be human in the larger context of nonhuman nature, and \"a willingness to question ... every economic and political policy in public\" (Naess 1993, 416). Implicit in this prescription is a call for both personal and structural transformation, and a participatory ethos that encourages both personal engagement with nonhuman nature and increased participation in decision-making processes. Science and appropriate technologies have a role to play, but there are other forms of knowledge and other ways of knowing that can guide us in our efforts to live within the ecological limits of our place in nature. Underlying this framing is a worldview that is both ecocentric and \"ecologically informed\" (Eckersley 1992, 49). Ecocentrism sees humankind as part of nature, and recognizes the inherent worth of both \"human and nonhuman Life on Earth\" (Naess 1993, 412). Beyond the satisfaction of vital needs, humans have no right to diminish the well-being of other life forms (Naess 1993, 412). A n ecologically informed understanding of reality is based on the principle of internal 22 relatedness which sees \"the world [as] an intrinsically dynamic, interconnected web of relations in which there are no absolutely discrete entities\" (Eckersley 1992, 49). A s active participants in this web of relations, organisms are both shaped by, and shapers of these relationships. This ecological sensibility sees nature as \"active and alive\" (Merchant 1980, 293) and fosters an ethic of \"reverence, humility, responsibility, and care\" (O'Riordan 1981, 1) towards nonhuman nature. In summary, while these two perspectives agree on the urgency of the environmental crisis, and on the need for action, they differ radically in both their understanding of this crisis and in their prescriptions for appropriate actions. Embedded in their prescribed solutions are radically different assumptions about who the active participants in the resolution of this crisis should be, and about what knowledge is relevant to the decisions at hand. Underlying these two perspectives are radically different belief systems about the nature of reality and humankind's place in it. Locating This Research In the Sustainability Discourses In considering the contested terrain of sustainability discourses, I locate this research in the context of the ecocentric discourse which understands the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of culture.' While agreeing that we do, indeed, face a 'crisis of survival,' an ecocentric perspective contextualizes and expands on how we understand this crisis. Firstly, an ecocentric perspective locates the roots of the 'crisis of survival' in the values, beliefs and 23 structures of western industrial culture and calls for radical changes in how we, in western culture, think and act. Secondly, an ecocentric perspective frames the 'crisis of survival' in ecocentric rather than anthropocentric terms. While an anthropocentric perspective concerns itself solely with human survival, an ecocentric perspective is concerned about the well-being and survival of both human and nonhuman life on Earth. In response to urgent calls for action, an ecocentric perspective calls for the active engagement of all in challenging the roots of ecological destruction and in coming to a deeper understanding of what it means to be human in the context of a nature to which we belong. In the process of translating concern into action, all ways of knowing that w i l l help us to learn to live within the limits of our place on Earth are relevant. The framing of the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of culture' is expanded upon in the next section. 2.2 An Overview of The Ecocentric Discourse A glance through two journals, Environmental Ethics and Environmental History Review, reveals both a common concern with the historical and cultural roots of the environmental crisis and the call for cultural transformation, and over 15 years of dialogue and debates arising from the differing emphases and interpretations given to the descriptions of and prescriptions for today's environmental crisis. In short, this literature represents an attempt, primarily by western writers, to reflect on the unecological nature of our own western culture. It is an attempt to see with a critical eye that within which we are embedded. A s to be expected of any evolving body of literature, there are disagreements, fragments of 24 thoughts, and changes of mind and heart along the way. Despite these disagreements, it is possible to identify several emerging themes within the literature that frames the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of culture.' In weaving together an ecocentric perspective, I draw primarily from the developing theories of deep ecology, social ecology, bioregionalism, and ecofeminism. These developing streams of ecocentric thought have in common four essential features of an ecocentric perspective: (a) the critique of western industrial culture; (b) the cultivation of an ecocentric culture; (c) a participatory and democratic ethos; and (d) an expanded epistemology. There are, however, important differences among these bodies of literature, both in terms of the particular contributions they make to an ecocentric perspective, and in the debates and differences between them. Deep ecology focuses on the development of a critique of anthropocentrism and the domination by humans of nonhuman nature; and on the cultivation of an expanded sense of self\u00E2\u0080\u0094the 'ecological self\u00E2\u0080\u0094which extends the boundaries of self-identification.2 Deep ecology articulates a philosophical and spiritual worldview that has two ultimate norms\u00E2\u0080\u0094self-realization and biocentric equality. It advocates simple living within the context of self-2 There has been some confusion in the literature between the terms \"deep ecology\" and the \"deep ecology movement\". My discussion of deep ecology focuses mainly on Arne Naess' ecocentric philosophy of life, Ecosophy T, as elaborated on by others. Ecosophy T is sometimes also called deep ecology, not to be confused with the deep ecology movement. Ecosophy T is one of a multitude of diverse ecosophies, and is based on such ultimate norms as self-realization for all beings, and ecocentric egalitarianism in principle: the realized ecological Self is a wide relational self. The deep ecology movement, on the other hand, \"is characterized by its platform principles, which do not represent an ultimate philosophy or ism\" (Drengson 1997, 110). As Alan Drengson explains, \"Many people support the movement, on a world wide basis, even though they subscribe to different ultimate philosophies, such as Taoism, Buddhism, Pantheism, Ecosophy T etc.\" (personal communication, September 1997). See Harold Glasser (1997) for a recent discussion of these matters. For a summary of the platform principles of the deep ecology movement, see Devall & Sessions (1985, 70). 25 regulating communities; and direct action and ecological resistance as means to bring about the necessary changes (Devall 1988; Devall & Sessions 1985; Evernden 1985; Fox 1989; LaChapelle 1988; Livingston 1981; Naess 1989). Social ecology, developed primarily by Murray Bookchin, locates the roots of the ecological crisis in the domination of humans by humans and calls for the elimination of domination in all its forms. The transformation to an ecological society requires both a participatory and emancipatory politics and the development of the capacity for ecological thinking. The challenge is to discover ways to fit social evolution within natural evolution. Decentralized, face-to-face democratic eco-communities are an essential feature of the social ecology vision. Social ecologists are critical of deep ecology's failure to address the social roots of the environmental crisis and the consequent tendency to pit all of humanity against nonhuman nature (Bookchin 1980, 1989, 1990; Biehl 1991). Bioregionalism is based on the recognition that the unsustainable practices of western industrial society have disrupted land-based and life-sustaining cultures and have produced an uprooted and homeless culture with little sense of connection to ecological or cultural place. Favouring decentralization and local community control, bioregionalism calls for the reinhabitation of rural and urban places\u00E2\u0080\u0094the recovery our capacity to live in socially and ecologically responsible ways within the limits and possibilities of our place (Aberley 1993; Andruss et al 1990; Berg 1978; Berg & Dasmann 1990; Meyer & Moosang 1992; Plant & Plant 1990; Sale 1985). Ecofeminism brings a distinctly feminist perspective to the ecocentric discourse. Ecofeminists focus on revealing the links between the domination of nature by humans and the domination of women by men; and on challenging patriarchal conceptual frameworks that sanction and perpetuate the 26 domination of both human and nonhuman nature. A s both a critical social theory and a grassroots activist movement, ecofeminism opposes domination in all its forms and urges a synthesis of feminist and ecological principles in resolving the environmental problems facing us today. There are differences within ecofeminism as to the role of women in bringing about this cultural transformation; and challenges to the patriarchal biases within deep ecology (Diamond & Orenstein 1990; Eisler 1987; Gaard 1993c; Merchant 1980, 1996; Plant 1989; Plumwood 1993; Salleh 1984, 1992; Shiva 1988; Warren 1987, 1990, 1994c). These four ecocentric streams are not mutually exclusive. There are, for example, ecofeminists who consider themselves bioregionalists and/or social ecologists; and deep ecologists who identify with the bioregional movement. While acknowledging the different theoretical developments taking place within the ecocentric discourse, my interest is not in exploring the various tensions and differences that exist within the literature. The one exception is the ecofeminist literature, which I w i l l explore in greater depth in the next chapter. M y purpose in this section is to draw selectively from deep ecology, social ecology, bioregionalism, and ecofeminism in order to come to a better understanding of the 'crisis of culture' and how best to respond to it. This understanding can contribute to the development of an ethics-based planning that is consistent with an ecocentric perspective. In the following sections, I explore four essential features of an ecocentric perspective: (a) the critique of western industrial culture; (b) the cultivation of an ecocentric culture; (c) a participatory and democratic ethos; and (d) an expanded epistemology. 27 The Critique of Western Industrial Culture In framing the environmental crisis as a 'crisis of culture,' the ecocentric discourse concerns itself with the historical and cultural roots of the environmental crisis. The developing ecocentric critique of western industrial culture challenges: (a) a western belief system (or worldview) that is both anthropocentric and mechanistic; and (b) social relations built on hierarchy and domination. Within this critique are those who remind us that (c) the environmental crisis has been historically and socially constructed. The western worldview. Worldviews are sets of beliefs and assumptions\u00E2\u0080\u0094'stories'--about how the world is, and should be (Berry 1988; Evernden 1985; Merchant 1980, 1989; Milbrath 1989). A s such, they act as powerful shapers of both consciousness and action. It is little wonder, then, that many theorists have attempted to gain an understanding of the roots of today's environmental crisis by examining the values, beliefs, and assumptions reflected in the stories of western industrial culture. While recognizing that any articulation of the \"Dominant Western Worldview\" would be \"somewhat arbitrary,\" Wi l l iam Catton Jr. and Riley Dunlap (1980, 17-18) list the following as four basic beliefs: (1) People are fundamentally different from all other creatures on earth, over which they have dominion. (2) People are masters [sic] of their destiny; they can choose their goals and learn to do whatever is necessary to achieve them. (3) The world is vast, and thus provides unlimited opportunities for humans. 28 (4) The history of humanity is one of progress; for every problem there is a solution, and thus progress need never cease. The anthropocentrism and technological optimism contained within these beliefs lead Catton and Dunlap to declare the Dominant Western Worldview \"patently unecological\" (18). Others agree and offer their own articulations of this unecological worldview (Berman 1984; Capra 1982; Coates 1981; Devall & Sessions 1985; Drengson 1980; Merchant 1980, 1989; 1992; Milbrath 1985, 1989; Sale 1985). Critics argue that the sanctioned domination and exploitation of nature, human arrogance, technological optimism, materialistic orientation, linear progress, expansionary ethos, centralized authority, and an emphasis on management and control are central characteristics of western industrial culture. While differing in their detailed expressions of the Dominant Western Worldview, the various authors agree that it is the cultural expression of a 'story' that is both anthropocentric and mechanistic. Although spoken of separately, anthropocentrism and mechanism are intricately interwoven into a set of assumptions about the nature of reality and the place of humankind in it. In placing humans and human cultures at the centre of moral consideration, anthropocentrism reflects the fundamental human-'nature'3 conceptual dualism found within western industrial culture (Devall & Sessions 1985; Eckersley 1992; Livingston 1981; Merchant 1980; Naess 1989; Plumwood 1993; Shiva 1988). Extracted from, and placed 3 Because the conceptual dualism separates humans from the rest of nature, the use of the word nature is problematic. For the purpose of clarity, I use the word nature to refer to the inclusive concept of nature (humans are part of this nature), and the word 'nature' to refer to the conceptual dualism that excludes humans. While I adopt the ecocentric perspective that humans are part of nature, I often refer to human nature and nonhuman nature to clarify and/or emphasize a point. 29 above, the complex web of life on this planet, humans and human cultures are seen as 'not nature.' Anthropocentrism sees humans as different from, separate from, and superior to the rest of creation over which they have dominion. The well-being of humans takes precedence over the well-being of non-human nature and \"nonhuman nature is there for no other purpose but to serve humankind\" (Eckersley 1992, 51). 'Nature' has value to the extent that it serves as an instrument or resource in the satisfaction of human needs and purposes (Plumwood 1993). Without this instrumental or resource value, nonhuman nature is without value, often invisible, and expendable. Closely related to anthropocentrism, mechanism assumes that the world functions like a machine and can be understood in terms of mechanical laws. Carolyn Merchant (1980, 234) outlines five basic assumptions of the mechanistic understanding of reality: ... the mechanical structure of reality (1) is made up of atomic parts, (2) consists of discrete information bits extracted from the world, (3) is assumed to operate according to laws and rules, (4) is based on context-free abstraction from the changing complex world of appearance, and (5) is defined so as to give us maximum capability for manipulation and control over nature. This mechanistic framework reduces nonhuman nature from a living, productive, active force to \"a system of dead, inert particles moved by external, rather than inherent forces\" (Merchant 1980, 193). While anthropocentrism separates and inferiorizes nonhuman nature, mechanism provides the means by which 'nature' can be managed, manipulated, and exploited to meet the needs and wishes of humankind. Embedded within a mechanistic understanding of reality are conceptual dualisms that not only separate humans from 'nature,' but that fragment and order the mind over body, and matter over spirit (Berman 1984, 1990; 30 Drengson 1980; Griffin 1988c; Griffin 1989; Merchant 1992; Mumford 1970). A s Carolyn Merchant (1992, 48) points out, \"the machine has permeated and reconstructed human consciousness so totally that today we scarcely question its validity.\" A technological fix is now applied equally to 'nature,' social processes, and the human body (Drengson 1980, 228-9; Merchant 1992, 48). The effect of this anthropocentric and mechanistic worldview is an \"alienated consciousness\" (Berman 1984, 3) that \"not only alienates humans from the rest of Nature but also alienates humans from themselves and from each other\" (Devall & Sessions 1985, 48). Disembodied from our sensate and spiritual selves, and isolated from the world around us, we go about our lives in a world with little sense of belonging (Berman 1984, 3). In speaking of the dualistic splits between human and 'nature,' mind and body, matter and spirit, Susan Griffin (1989, 7) describes the \"split culture\" of western industrial society: \"We who are born into this civilization have inherited a habit of mind. We are divided against ourselves. We no longer feel ourselves to be a part of this earth. We regard our fellow creatures as enemies. A n d , very young, we even learn to disown a part of our own being.\" Hierarchical social structures. Accompanying the anthropocentric and mechanistic beliefs of western culture are social structures characterized by hierarchy and domination (Biehl 1991; Bookchin 1980, 1989; Devall & Sessions 1985; D'Souza 1989; Galtung 1980; K i n g 1990; Merchant 1980, 1989, 1992; Warren 1987, 1990). Together these beliefs and structures shape our thoughts and our actions; they justify and enable the exploitation and 31 domination of both human and nonhuman nature. But while the ecocentric discourse has paid much attention to the 'stories' of western culture, less attention has been paid to the social structures that keep these stories in place (Bookchin 1989; Eckersley 1992). Murray Bookchin (1989, 17) urges us to pay attention to social structures, arguing that \"humans have developed ways of relating to each other through institutions that, more than any single factor, determine how they deal with the natural world.\" Institutions, explain Berger & Luckmann (1985, 72), are established or structured patterns of interacting that channel our activities \"in one direction as against the many other directions that would theoretically be possible.\" Informed by an anthropocentric and mechanistic belief system, the institutions of western culture channel activities towards the exploitation and domination of nature. In examining the nature of these institutions, however, it is clear that not everyone influences decisions to the same degree, and not everyone benefits equally from the domination of nature. A s Johan Galtung (1980) points out, social structures within western culture are characterized by unequal exchanges that have the effect of channelling both decision-making power and resources toward an elite few. These inequitable exchanges take many forms-economic, political, military, social, cultural, and communicative\u00E2\u0080\u0094and take place on global, national, regional, and local levels. A nested and interlocking set of inequitable exchanges, together with anthropocentric and mechanistic beliefs, have enabled and sanctioned the exploitation and domination of both human and nonhuman nature, and have led to gross social and economic inequities and widespread ecological destruction (Galtung 1980; Merchant 1980, 1989; Shiva 1988). 32 The social construction of the crisis. Despite the fact that the dominant belief systems and structures of western culture are accepted as 'common sense,' these ways of thinking and acting did not always exist. As many argue, the environmental crisis as we know it is a product of historical forces that have given rise to inappropriate and ecologically destructive interactions with nonhuman nature (Berman 1984, 1990; Bi rd 1987; Bookchin 1989; Eisler 1987; Evernden 1985; Hughes 1993; Merchant 1980, 1987, 1989; White 1967; Worster 1987). While the roots of today's crisis can be traced to earlier times, (Berman 1984; Eisler 1987; Hughes 1993; White 1967), the developments that took place within 15th to 17th century Europe are seen as particularly significant in the transformation from organic to mechanistic worldviews (Berman 1984; Merchant 1980, 1989; Worster 1987). Up to this time, many still saw themselves as intimately connected to and participating in an enchanted world in which nonhuman nature was sacred, productive, and alive. The 'ecological revolution' (Merchant 1987, 1989) that took place in Europe during this period succeeded in transforming both this consciousness and existing social structures. Carolyn Merchant (1989, 23) describes ecological revolutions as \"processes through which different societies change their relationship to nature. They arise from tensions between production and ecology and between production and reproduction. The results are new constructions of nature, both materially and in human consciousness.\" The features of an ecological revolution are difficult to discuss in isolation (Berman 1984; Merchant 1989; Worster 1987). A s an interwoven whole, they form \"a structured totality or historical gestalt\" (Berman 1984, 38). They shape and co-define each other. 33 Within 15th to 17th century Europe, the scientific and industrial revolutions, the collapse of feudalism and the emergence and expansion of capitalism, and the rise of liberal thought all converged to profoundly transform social relations and European consciousness. A disenchanted and mechanistic science, together with powerful technologies, sanctioned and enabled the widespread exploitation and destruction of'nature.' The emergence and expansion of capitalism radically transformed subsistence-based economies, reducing both 'nature' and human labour to commodities for sale in the marketplace, concentrating 'productive' labour outside the home, and relegating all other productive and nonproductive work to the margins (Merchant 1980; Polanyi 1977). A liberal philosophy \"based on the concept of possessive individualism generated an image of an individual who owed nothing to society\" (D'Souza 1989, 29). Supported by the emerging concept of private property rights, this liberal philosophy encouraged the pursuit of self-interest and economic rationality \"unembarrassed by too many moral or aesthetic sentiments\" (Worster 1987, 94). Freed from the bonds of commitment and obligation to the Earth and community, lured by promises of material progress, enabled by technological innovations, and convinced that 'nature' was there to serve humankind, \"everything came to seem possible\" (Worster 1987, 101). But everything was not possible to everyone equally. The ecological revolution that replaced an organic worldview with an anthropocentric and mechanistic understanding of reality simply transformed existing feudal relations into another set of inequitable social structures. Communal relations within peasant communities were fragmented; and feudal lords were replaced with a new industrial, capitalist, scientific, intellectual, religious, and political elite. In the name of 'progress,' this emerging elite promoted the expansion of western industrial 34 culture within Europe and across the globe, leaving behind them a trail of ecological degradation, marginalized indigenous cultures, and dispossessed peoples (Bookchin 1989; Merchant 1980, 1989; Mies 1986; Shiva 1988). In the context of hierarchical social structures, a dominant elite continue to disproportionately influence the social negotiations that have resulted in inappropriate interactions with nonhuman nature and that have produced the environmental crisis we face today (Bird 1987; Bookchin 1989; Merchant 1987, 1989). The Cultivation of an Ecocentric Culture From an ecocentric perspective, the environmental problems facing us cannot be resolved within existing belief systems and structures. If the roots of this crisis are cultural, so are the solutions. The call for the cultivation of an ecocentric culture is two-fold: (a) the cultivation of an ecological consciousness; and (b) the creation of supportive social structures. A s with the ecological revolution from organicism to mechanism, (c) the transformation to an ecocentric culture wi l l be socially constructed\u00E2\u0080\u0094shaped by social and historical forces that give rise to new meanings, social structures, and relationships to nature. The ecocentric challenge is to influence the processes by which we come to understand and interact with nonliuman nature. Cultivating an ecological consciousness. For some, a growing awareness of the values and beliefs embedded in the western worldview has inspired the articulation of a contrasting ecological worldview capable of guiding us towards a sustainable future. 35 Drengson's (1980) person-planetary paradigm, Catton & Dunlap's (1980) new ecological paradigm, Milbrath's (1985, 1989) new environmental paradigm, Sale's (1985) bioregional paradigm, and Devall & Session's (1985) deep ecology worldview are examples of such attempts. A s an example, Devall & Sessions (1985, 69) contrast the Dominant Worldview with the values underlying Deep Ecology: Harmony with Nature A l l nature has intrinsic worth/biospecies equality Elegantly simple material needs (material goals serving the larger goal of self-realization) Earth \"supplies\" limited Appropriate technology; nondominating science Doing with enough/recycling Minori ty tradition [self-regulating communitiesj/bioregion The intrinsic value of human and nonhuman nature; attitudes of humility, compassion, and care; technological caution and appropriateness; a conserver orientation and emphasis on non-materialist values; the recognition of ecological limits; decentralized control; self-reliant communities; and participatory democracy are common themes found within proposed ecological worldviews. The strength of these articulations, argues Duncan Taylor (1992, 32), is their \"ability to act as a forum from which to engage in a sustained critique of the dominant values and assumptions underlying modern Western society.\" The danger is that they tend to simply construct mirror images of the dominant western paradigm and to perpetuate, rather than challenge, the either-or dualistic thinking characteristic of western thought (Berman 1990; Taylor 1992; Plumwood 1993). While the construction of an alternative worldview may make us feel safe, Morris Berman (1990, 312) suggests that it is reflexivity rather than 36 the creation of a new ecological paradigm that w i l l provide us with the tools \"for breaking away from this vertical, binary pathology.\" The focus of much of this reflexivity has been the anthropocentric human-'nature' dualism which has given rise to an alienated consciousness and inappropriate interactions with nonhuman nature. For the cultivation of an ecocentric culture, it is essential that this dualism be challenged and that we fundamentally re-think what it means to be human in the context of a nature to which we belong. This re-thinking involves the transformation from a human-centred to an ecocentric perspective which locates humans and human cultures in the context of the larger community of life (Eckersley 1992; Devall & Sessions 1985; Fox 1989; Macy 1994; Naess 1989; Taylor 1994). Aldo Leopold (1966, 239) expresses this sensibility when he calls for a land ethic that \"enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.\" This land ethic, he argues, changes the role of humans \"from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it\" (240). Being a responsible member of this land-community requires the cultivation of an ecological consciousness which locates the self in the context of an interconnected and dynamic web of life, and which recognizes and respects the intrinsic value of a l l life on earth. Both human and nonliuman nature \"have an equal right to live and blossom\" (Naess 1989, 28) and humans have no right to diminish the well-being of other life forms beyond the satisfaction of \"vital needs\" (29). This egalitarian attitude of intrinsic worth extends to \"all entities (including humans) the freedom to unfold in their own way unhindered by the various forms of human domination\" (Fox 1989, 6). Rather than simply reverse the human-37 'nature' dualism in order to privilege nonhuman over human nature, this egalitarian attitude seeks what Robyn Eckersley (1992, 53) calls \"emancipation writ large\" (my emphasis). A s she explains, a truly ecocentric perspective sees each human individual and each human culture as just as entitled to live and blossom as any other species, provided they do so in a way that is sensitive to the needs of other human individuals, communities, and cultures, and other life-forms generally (56). Such a perspective, she argues, \"necessarily supports social justice in the human community\" (56). In contrast to the individualistic, egoistic, and alienated self cultivated within western culture, an ecocentric perspective encourages the cultivation of an ecological self which identifies with, and seeks self-realization within, the context of a larger 'Self,' \"where 'Self stands for organic wholeness\" (Devall & Sessions 1985, 67). A s V a l Plumwood (1991, 1992, 1993) points out, however, there are various interpretations as to how the self is to identify with the dynamic whole within which it is embedded. She identifies four accounts of the self contained within the literature: (1) the holistic self which denies the existence of any boundaries between human and nonhuman nature and which sees the self as merging with and indistinguishable from the cosmic whole (Plumwood 1993, 176-7); (2) the expanded self which enlarges and extends the sense of self to include an identification with all other beings with whom we feel empathy (Plumwood 1993, 179); (3) the transcended or transpersonal self which transcends the personal and particular self in favour of an impartial and universal identification with the cosmos (Plumwood 1993, 181); and (4) the relational self which sees 38 the self as self-in-relationship, acknowledges both kinship with and difference from other earth beings, and cultivates relationships of care for self and other (Plumwood 1993, 154-160). Underlying notions of the ecological self is an ecocentric and ecologically informed understanding of reality. A s Robyn Eckersley (1992, 49) explains, Ecocentrism is based on an ecologically informed philosophy of internal relatedness. according to which all organisms are not simply interrelated with their environment but also constituted by those very environmental interrelationships. ... [T]he world is an intrinsically dynamic, interconnected web of relations in which there are no absolutely discrete entities and no absolute dividing lines between the living and the nonliving, the animate and the inanimate, or the human and the nonhuman. Embedded in this dynamic web of relations, organisms\u00E2\u0080\u0094both human and nonhuman\u00E2\u0080\u0094are both shaped by and shapers of the relationships between self and others. In affirming the intrinsic value of all life, and in acknowledging both connection to and dependence on earth others, an ecocentric and ecologically informed understanding of reality encourages the cultivation of responsible relationships with earth others, including future generations (LaChappelle 1988; Plumwood 1993). A guiding ethic encourages relations based on \"reverence, humility, responsibility, and care\" (O'Riordan 1981, 1). Jim Cheney (1987, 133), for instance, advocates the concept of moral community \"in which selves are defined by means of relationships of care and responsibility\" and in which the moral challenge is to discover the right relationships by which to live our lives. Arguing for a contextual understanding of what these relationships might look like, he continues, What our responsibilities are is a function of where we happen to find ourselves in that web of relations which constitutes the community. ... To understand what our 39 obligations are, to understand what is required of us, it is necessary to understand the individuals involved (or the nature of the kinds of individuals involved), their relationships to one another, and their place in a complex community or ecosystem (136, 141). In challenging the human-nature dualism of western culture, ecocentrism promotes the recovery of a wholeness that not only connects the individual to the larger web of relations, but that encourages the recovery of the whole self. It encourages an embodied holism which challenges the hierarchical ordering of humans over nonhuman nature, mind over body, matter over spirit (Berman 1984, 1990; Griffin 1989; Heller 1993a). A s embodied, sensate beings, we come to experience our self and the world around us with our bodies, our hearts, and our minds. In 'coming to our senses'\u00E2\u0080\u0094in learning to trust our senses\u00E2\u0080\u0094 we come to know what really matters (Berman 1990). It is this \"affective, concrete, and sensual experience of life\" (Berman 1986, 44), together with an awareness of our interconnectedness within a whole much greater than ourselves, that are the essence of the sacred (Adams 1993; Berman 1990; Devall & Sessions 1985; LaChapelle 1988; Macy 1983, 1994; Spretnak 1986, 1991; Starhawk 1987). In recognizing the inherent worth of all beings, we come to see that the sacred is inherent in the existence of every being (Starhawk 1987, 21). A s Dolores LaChapelle (1988, 127) puts it, the search for relationships that honour the inherent worth of all beings is the search for sacred relationships. The awakening of self to connection and embodied wholeness, then, is a spiritual awakening; and the unfolding of the self\u00E2\u0080\u0094both human and nonhuman\u00E2\u0080\u0094are sacred processes (Spretnak 1991). 40 Creating supportive social structures. While ecocentrists have focused much attention on the cultivation of an ecological consciousness, others warn that we need to pay attention to the context within which this ecological consciousness is to emerge. A s they argue, there is no guarantee that the recovery of the ecological self, a sense of wholeness, or spiritual awakening w i l l put an end to hierarchy and domination (Berman 1984, 1990; Biehl 1991; Bookchin 1989; Merchant 1989). Murray Bookchin (1989, 7-18), for instance, warns against a spirituality that ignores the social roots of today's problems, surrenders the self to \"nature's commands,\" and creates \"a new hierarchy of priests and priestesses.\" Morris Berman (1984, 1990) supports the call for embodied holism but urges us to pay attention to the context within which we seek to recover this wholeness. A s he warns, \"it is context that w i l l determine where the content eventually winds up\" (1990, 303). He points to the harnessing of deep somatic energies during the rise of fascism in Germany after World War I, and warns that the revival of these same energies within today's \"mobile, rootless, high-technology, sexually repressed, mass society\" makes the \"specter of fascism ... no idle threat\" (1984, 294). Berman argues, however, that the real threat facing us today comes from cybernetic holism and systems-theory analysis (Berman 1984, 1986, 1990). Unlike embodied holism which supports \"real bodily engagement with the world\" (1990, 306), cybernetic holism is just an updated version of the mechanistic worldview. \"The world is now no longer seen as Descartes' clock, but as von Neumann's computer; but it is still, in the last analysis, a machine\" (305). In the context of existing hierarchical structures, he argues, cybernetic holism enables those in power to intensify and increasingly centralize the management, exploitation, and control of human and nonhuman nature. 41 To be supportive, the social structures of an ecocentric culture must be consistent with, and enable us to act in ways that are consistent with, an ecocentric sensibility. A s Robin Eckersley (1992, 28) puts it, \"an ecocentric approach regards the question of our proper place in the rest of nature as logically prior to the question of what are the most appropriate social and political arrangements for human communities.\" Knowing our proper place in the rest of nature, the appropriate social and political arrangements can help us to live there. Not surprisingly then, much of the ecocentric discourse has concentrated on the cultivation of an ecological consciousness. A s Carolyn Merchant (1989, 264) warns, however, a change in consciousness alone wi l l not bring about the cultural transformation that ecocentrists call for. Such an ecological revolution requires the simultaneous transformation of consciousness, social relations, and socioeconomic structures (Merchant 1987, 1989). In the words of Morris Berman (1990, 298), \"the whole thing is a package deal.\" Coming to an understanding of what it means to be human in the context of life on earth helps to shape our consciousness and guide the formation of new structures. But unless sufficient attention is paid to the creation of supportive structures, the flourishing of the ecological self and our attempts to act in ways that are consistent with an ecological consciousness w i l l be frustrated (Berman 1984, 1990; Biehl 1991; Bookchin 1989; Merchant 1980, 1989, 1992). A s Carolyn Merchant (1992,8) puts it, we need \"to move forward both in thought and action.\" We need to challenge both the values and structures that perpetuate ecological destruction; and simultaneously cultivate both an ecological consciousness and supportive social structures. 42 In examining a broad spectrum of environmental and ecopolitical thought, Robyn Eckersley (1992, 179-86) argues that insufficient attention has been paid to what these social and political structures might look like. In general, the response to the centralized and hierarchical nature of existing institutions has been to promote non-hierarchical and democratic institutions, decentralization, self-reliance, cooperation, and local community control (Eckersley 1992; O'Riordan 1981). Eckersley (1992), however, urges more careful thought to the social and political structures that are being proposed. In criticizing the simplistic reversal from centralized state control to local community control, for instance, she argues that this concept fails to recognize \"the many different layers of social and ecological community that cohere beyond the level of the local community\" (182). Furthermore, she argues that the assumption that local communities w i l l 'naturally' make better decisions is overly optimistic, especially in the context of prevailing anthropocentric sensibilities. Instead, she argues that a multi-levelled decision-making framework, with its checks and balances, \"provides a far greater institutional recognition of the different levels of social and ecological community in the world. ... In particular, it is better able to secure the international, interregional, and intercommunity agreement that is essential to dealing with the ecological crisis and better placed to secure the maintenance of basic standards of income, health, education, and welfare between communities, regions, and nations (183). Ultimately, however, she argues that it is \"the cultivation of an ecocentric culture [that] is crucial to achieving a lasting solution to the ecological crisis\" (185). Only within an ecocentric culture w i l l there be broad-based support \"in favor of the kinds of far-reaching, substantive reforms that w i l l protect biological diversity and life-support systems\" (185). 43 The social construction of an ecocentric culture. In calling for the cultivation of an ecocentric culture, there is general agreement that this w i l l involve the transformation of both consciousness and structures (Berman 1984; Bookchin 1980, 1989; Eckersley 1992; Merchant 1980, 1989; Naess 1989; Rees 1992). A s Morris Berman (1984, 10) emphasizes, \"Some type of holistic, or participating, consciousness and a corresponding sociopolitical formation have to emerge i f we are to survive as a species.\" Beyond general agreement, however, proponents of an ecocentric perspective differ as to the relative importance they place on the cultivation of an ecological consciousness and/or the creation of supportive structures; differ as to the precise nature of this consciousness and corresponding structures; and disagree about the actions and strategies that w i l l best bring them into being (Eckersley 1992; Merchant 1992). Carolyn Merchant (1992, 237-40) urges us to see these differences as part of a dynamic and evolving process whereby we socially construct \"[n]ew ideas and new strategies for change.\" It is through this dynamic and evolving process\u00E2\u0080\u0094involving both thought and action\u00E2\u0080\u0094that, in the words of Elizabeth Bi rd (1987, 261), we begin the process of constructing the \"socially negotiated moral truths\" by which we understand and interact appropriately with nature. In doing so, the participants in this process \"challenge the hegemony of the dominant order ... contributing thought and action to the search for a livable world\" (Merchant 1992, 240). In contrast to the undemocratic processes of the dominant order, the call for the social negotiation of the moral truths of an ecocentric culture embodies both a participatory and democratic ethos which expands our understanding of who the relevant actors in this process should be, and an expanded epistemology which broadens our 44 understanding of what knowledge is relevant to the process. The following two sections explore these two dimensions of the social construction of an ecocentric culture. A Participatory and Democratic Ethos In contrast to the managerial and centralized approach to environmental problems found within the dominant structures of western culture, the ecocentric perspective embodies a participatory and democratic ethos (Eckersley 1992; O'Riordan 1981). A s Eckersley (1992) points out, this ethos includes, but extends beyond, the issue of democratic participation by humans in human-defined processes. In keeping with the ecocentric notion of \"emancipation writ large\" (Eckersley 1992, 53), this participatory ethos acknowledges all of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0094human and nonhuman\u00E2\u0080\u0094as active participants in an emancipatory project that is directed towards the flourishing of both the ecological self and earth others. A n ecocentric sensibility carries with it \"an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes\" so that all life can flourish (Naess 1989, 29). In calling for the transformation of self and society, consciousness and structures, ecocentrism is intrinsically participatory. Without the full engagement of all\u00E2\u0080\u0094both individually and collectively\u00E2\u0080\u0094this cultural transformation cannot take place. In calling for the cultivation of an ecocentric culture, ecocentrists support notions of: (a) direct action, (b) an active citizenry, and (c) democratic processes. Within this ecocentric discourse, (d) issues of participation are embedded within an ecocentric framework committed to the flourishing of both human and nonhuman life on this planet. 45 Direct action. \"Direct action,\" write Devall and Sessions (1985, 204), \"means giving active voice to deep ecological intuitions, encouraging more intuitive insights, as well as acquiring more knowledge and understanding of our bioregion, homeland, Nature and ourselves.\" Within the ecocentric discourse, the call for direct action is threefold: (1) a call for \"a deep engagement with l iving\" (Devall & Sessions 1985, 205) as a way to cultivate an ecological consciousness (Devall 1988; Devall & Sessions 1985; Naess 1989) and as a way to know \"what kinds of care, regard, and responsiveness are appropriate in the particular situations in which we find ourselves\" (Cheney 1987, 144); (2) a call for increased grassroots activism (Devall 1988; Spretnak & Capra 1986; Starhawk 1987) as a means \"to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree\" (Spretnak & Capra 1986, 231); and (3) a call for the creation of lifestyles, livelihoods, technologies, and policies/practices that enhance personal, social, and ecological well-being (Andruss et al. 1990; Bookchin 1980, 1989; Devall 1988; Naess 1989; Roszak 1989; Sale 1985). A s Starhawk (1987, 26) points out, \"Our way out w i l l involve both resistance and renewal: saying no to what is, so that we can reshape and recreate the world.\" In resisting, we challenge both the dominant worldview and its destructive practices. In creating alternatives, we prove that other ways of thinking and acting are possible (Galtung 1980; Roszak 1989; Starhawk 1987). An active citizenry. In contrast to the top-down decision-making processes prevalent within the dominant institutions of western culture, the ecocentric perspective calls for increased participation on the part of ordinary citizens (Eckersley 1992, Naess 1989; O'Riordan 1981, Orr 1992). A s O'Riordan (1981, 256) points out, this participatory strategy 46 is essentially a call for greater sharing of power \"and the politicisation of citizen awareness into new democratic forms.\" Although the call for an active citizenry is not unique to an ecocentric perspective (Eckersley 1992, 8-11), it is consistent with the ecocentric recognition that, as interconnected beings, we are both shaped by and shapers of decisions that are made and acted upon (Cheney 1987; Starhawk 1982, 1987). Recognizing this interconnectedness and the responsibility to develop responsible relationships with earth others, ecocentrism supports the notion that citizens have the right to participate fully and actively in decisions that affect their lives and the well-being of the greater whole to which they are connected. This ecocentric perspective challenges the liberal notion of the autonomous rights-based individual, substituting instead the notion of \"relatively autonomous beings who, by our purposive thought and action, help to constitute the very relations that determine who we are\" (Eckersley 1992, 53). What is unique about the ecocentric perspective is its challenge to anthropocentric biases within emancipatory thought (Eckersley 1992, 26-31). While anthropocentric notions of emancipation seek freedom for humans, ecocentrism seeks the emancipation and flourishing of both human and nonhuman nature. In acknowledging the moral standing of nonhuman nature, ecocentrism raises the question of how the voices of nonhuman nature can best be represented and heard (Eckersley 1992, 57-9; Livingston 1981; Sandilands 1994; Seed et al 1988). Democratic processes. Creating processes and spaces within which all can be heard, and within which an ecological consciousness can emerge, are central to the democratic processes supported by an ecocentric perspective. Chaia Heller (1993b, 240), for instance, 47 calls for the creation of \"an 'erotic democracy' that decentralizes power and allows for direct, passionate participation in the decisions that determine our lives.\" For Jim Cheney (1987, 132), these decisions are both ethical and contextual, and are best facilitated through the process of consensus decision-making in the context of the moral community to which we belong. Consensual decision making takes relations seriously; it is a method of inclusion, and it is concerned to preserve community. It does not make individuals subservient to the well-being of the whole; nor does it pit individual against individual in a way which can be resolved only by \"hierarchical, adversarial means.\" Janet Biehl (1991) and Murray Bookchin (1989) warn, however, that the desire to preserve community can turn consensus decision-making into a tyrannical process which silences both individuality and dissent. A s Biehl (1991, 140) argues, \"Dissent is not merely a form of disagreement. It is a form of healthy and creative opposition that gives rise to new ideas and critical thinking.\" In a similar vein, Catriona Sandilands (1994) argues that a truly democratic process must remain open to new ideas and critical thoughts. This is particularly true, she argues, because ecocentric attempts to give voice to nonhuman nature are limited by our own understandings of, and experiences with, a 'wildness' that can never be adequately described, understood, or represented. While \"experiences of nature might inform a political project\" (169) she argues that we must \"guard against the possible claim that nature's interests are perfectly served in human discussion\" (171). A s she explains, To respect the limits of [this political] discourse is to avoid the authoritarian and totalizing claim that we have got it right; it is to keep different forms of conversation going, to preserve the lack of closure that democracy requires\" (171). 48 Despite the generalized support for inclusive and democratic processes, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the question of which processes are most consistent with an ecological sensibility, and which are best suited to \"keeping the conversation going.\" Robyn Eckersley (1992, 30) argues that emancipatory thought in general, and ecocentrism in particular, \"is still very much in its infancy\" when it comes to proposing appropriate social and political arrangements. In her review of the various ecopolitical philosophies she finds none that are entirely consistent with an ecocentric sensibility. While there is broad support for democratic institutions and processes, she notes the tensions between those who support the notion of decentralized local communities and the abolishment of the centralized state, and those who support the notion of participatory democracy within the context of a democratic state (183). Eckersley finds both of these positions wanting and proposes instead a multi-layered \"ecocentric polity\" that acknowledges a role for both a democratic, responsive, and less powerful state and for various levels of democratic decision-making bodies (185). Embedding participation in an ecocentric framework. In the last instance, participatory structures and democratic processes are necessary but insufficient features of an ecocentric framework. Questions concerning who participates and how they participate are important but they do not in themselves ensure that participants bring to the table, and are able to fully express, ecocentric values and beliefs. In examining the participatory ethos within the American environmental movement in the 1960s, for instance, Eckersley (1992, 11) found that issues of democratic participation (who gets to decide) and of distributive 49 justice (who benefits, who pays) \"remained embedded in an essentially anthropocentric framework.\" In seeking to redirect \"the development and use of technology toward more human liberatory ends\" (11), this emancipatory movement failed to challenge the androcentric values and assumptions underlying their own western industrial culture. To serve ecocentric goals, questions of participation and social justice need to be embedded within an ecocentric framework which takes as its goal the flourishing of all life on earth. It is within an ecocentric culture committed to the well-being of human and nonhuman nature that we will be able to bring an ecological consciousness and our ecological self to the table. Herein lies the ecocentric dilemma: in the context of a culture steeped in anthropocentric values, how can democratic and participatory processes produce socially negotiated truths and decisions that reflect an ecocentric sensibility? In calling for the social construction of an ecocentric culture, it could be argued that the agents of cultural transformation are those who contribute\u00E2\u0080\u0094through personal and collective actions\u00E2\u0080\u0094to the cultivation of an ecological sensibility, to the creation of structures and processes that enable the full expression of this ecological sensibility, and to the creation of real practical alternatives to the dominant ways of being in western culture. But John Livingston (1981, 21) raises an interesting question when he asks: \"why aren't there more of us?\" The ecocentric challenge is to increase the numbers of people who are support the kinds of decisions and actions necessary to ensure a sustainable future for both human and nonhuman nature. Given the large numbers of people who do not share an ecocentric perspective, Eckersley (1992, 186) argues, 50 One of the urgent tasks ... is not only to ensure that there is a regular and accurate flow of information to the general public on ecological issues but also to stimulate a far more extensive political debate on environmental values. This includes calling into question long-standing and deeply held anthropocentric assumptions and prejudices. It also requires the generation of new ways of seeing and new visions of an alternative ecological society that enable people to imagine or visualize what it might be like to live differently, and with greater ecological security. Eckersley's call for more extensive political debate suggests that it is through active participation in the processes by which we come to understand and respond to the environmental crisis that we socially construct the moral truths of an ecocentric culture. In recognizing the ecocentric dilemma, Janis Birkeland (1993b, 31) continues to call for \"open, educative and participatory processes\" arguing that these processes \"are perhaps the only context within which such educative processes can occur.\" V a l Plumwood (1995, 137) goes even further. In challenging an \"elite-dominated polity [which] silences messages that those in power do not wish to hear,\" she argues that \"responsive democratic forms that open communication and spread decision-making processes most equally should offer the best protection for nature.\" An Expanded Epistemology From an ecocentric perspective, western culture's privileging of scientific and technical knowledge and experts has served to severely restrict our understanding of reality by marginalizing both other ways of knowing and other knowers (Berman 1984, 1990; D'Souza 1989; Griffin 1988c; Roszak 1989; Shiva 1988, 1993). A n epistemology that is 51 consistent with an ecocentric perspective is one that is open to all ways of knowing that w i l l help us to \"live humanely, peacefully, and responsibly on the earth\" (Orr 1992, xi). To that end, the ecocentric discourse focuses on recovering ways of knowing that have been marginalized by the dominant culture, and on learning \"the things we need to know\" (House, 1990) in order to live responsibly within our particular place on this earth. In contrast to the scientific search for objective facts, the ecocentric search is guided by ecocentric values and concerns and the desire to recover and discover that which 'really matters' and is 'worth knowing' (Berman 1990; Orr 1992; Schumacher 1977). As David Orr (1992, 155) points out, \"not everything learned ... is worth knowing ... [and not all] new knowledge is better (more fit) than old knowledge that we discarded or other kinds of knowledge that we chose not to pursue.\" Within the ecocentric discourse, the following ways of knowing have, to varying degrees, been acknowledged as contributing to an ecocentric and ecologically informed understanding of reality: (a) indigenous knowledge systems; (b) embodied knowledge; (c) a re-enchanted science in general; and (d) ecology in particular. Those who acknowledge the limitations of ecology caution against an uncritical adoption of 'nature's laws' and argue instead for the recognition of (e) the social construction of ecological knowledge. Indigenous knowledge systems. Many of the hidden truths of an ecocentric culture are contained within the \"'disappeared' knowledge systems\" of earth-based cultures-traditional knowledge systems which have been dismissed as primitive and unscientific by the western scientific mind (Shiva 1993, 132). Within the ecocentric discourse, the indigenous cultures within which these knowledge systems have evolved are seen as sources 52 of ecological wisdom (Berry 1988; Bookchin 1989; Booth & Jacobs 1993; Devall & Sessions 1985; D'Souza 1989; Hay 1989; LaChapelle 1988; Mander 1991; Merchant 1989; Shiva 1988, 1993). Underlying the ecological wisdom of earth-based cultures are belief systems that see the earth as sacred and alive and humans as active participants in the web of life; knowledge systems based on intimate knowledge of the particular places within which they dwell; and cultural practices that encourage and support responsible relationships to nonhuman nature. Evolving and enduring over long periods of time, and within particular ecological and social contexts, these cultural beliefs, knowledge systems and practices are complex, detailed, and sophisticated. In articulating the ecological wisdoms of Native American cultures, however, Booth & Jacobs (1993) caution against their misappropriation. A s they remind us, ecological wisdom is context-dependent and attempts to \"borrow culture\" and uncritically apply it to our own western culture are inappropriate, disrespectful, and bound to fail. Furthermore, they point out, \"there is a delicate line between respectful learning and intellectual plundering\" (Booth & Jacobs 1993, 525). A n understanding of earth-based cultures can act \"as a contrast to our own destructive relationships with the natural world, and as a reminder that positive relationships can and do exist\" (525). But it is the pursuit of respectful relationships with people of these cultures, and an active ecocentric discourse among ourselves, that are key to the cultivation of an ecological wisdom appropriate to our own western culture. Embodied knowledge. In challenging the mind-body dualism of western thought, the ecocentric discourse a f f i r m s , and encourages the recovery of, ways of knowing that have 53 been denied and trivialized by the rational mind. A s Bowers (1991, 103) points out, \"The identification of knowledge with the mental process occurring in the head of the individual discounted the importance of the body as a source of knowledge.\" Ecocentrists argue that, as whole, sensate beings, we are capable of knowing with our whole selves\u00E2\u0080\u0094with our minds and our bodies, with our logic and our emotions, with our physical and our spiritual self (Berman 1984, 1990; Griffin 1989; Griffin 1988b; Livingston 1981; Naess 1989; Plumwood 1993; Schumacher 1977; Spretnak 1991; Starhawk 1987). This embodied sensibility is expressed in Judith Plant's (1990b, 82) use of the phrase \"think feelingly.\" In 'coming to our senses'\u00E2\u0080\u0094in healing the mind-body split\u00E2\u0080\u0094we recover ways of knowing that arise out of \"real bodily engagement with the world\" (Berman 1990, 306) and come to know \"the ultimate meaning of human life on this planet\" (318). Schumacher (1977) reminds us that these lived experiences are both outer and inner, visible and invisible, material and spiritual. In experiencing the world as whole, sensate beings with minds, bodies, and spirits, and in locating moral authority within our whole being, we come to know what Wil l i s Harman (1988, 122) calls 'the secret': \"Experienced reality does not conform to the 'reality' they taught us in science class; the 'scientific worldview' is not an adequate guide for living life.\" A re-enchanted science. The call for embodied knowledge is not an outright dismissal of rationality and science, but it challenges narrow notions of rationality and acknowledges that there other valid ways of knowing. A s Eckersley (1992, 51) points out, ecocentrist theorists are not against science or technology per se; rather they are against scientism (i.e., the conviction that empiric-analytic science is the only valid 54 way of knowing) and technocentrism (i.e., anthropocentric technological optimism). The distinction is crucial. What is being contested is not science itself but a science that is based on mechanistic and anthropocentric assumptions about reality; that claims to produce objective, value-free, and absolute truths about reality; that denies that there are other ways of knowing the world; and that is directed towards controlling and managing nature (Berman 1984, 1990; Capra 1982; Griffin 1988c; Merchant 1980; Mumford 1970; Roszak 1989; Schumacher 1977). A s David Griffin (1988a, 8) points out, this science \"is not a value-free enterprise.\" The scientific facts or truths produced by this science are \"selected according to various interests and prejudices,\" both within and outside the scientific community, and leave many other truths undiscovered (9). A s Schumacher (1977, 4) puts it, the \"maps of understanding\" produced by this narrow science \"leave all the questions that really matter unanswered; more than that, they deny the validity of the questions\" (Schumacher 1977, 4). In reducing what can be known, and how it can be known, this science has disenchanted both nature and itself (Berman 1984; Griffin 1988a). In challenging this anthropocentric and mechanistic science, ecocentrists support the notion of a re-enchanted science\u00E2\u0080\u0094a science that, in David Bohm's (1988, 60) words, \"[does] not separate matter and consciousness and [does] not separate facts, meaning, and value.\" A central feature of this reenchanted science is the notion of internal relatedness (Birch 1988; Bohm 1988; Griffin 1988a). A s Eckersley (1992, 51-2) points out, it is within the developments of science itself\u00E2\u0080\u0094particularly within physics and biology\u00E2\u0080\u0094that we find support for the \"ecological model of internal relatedness\" which is central to an ecocentric 55 perspective. But it is to the science of ecology in particular that many ecocentrists turn for guidance and inspiration. Ecology as a subversive science. A s Theodore Roszak (1989, 400) points out, \"Ecology has been called the 'subversive science'\u00E2\u0080\u0094and with good reason.\" With its focus on understanding and maintaining the integrity of a world comprised of an \"intrinsically dynamic, interconnected web of relations\" (Eckersley 1992, 49), ecology has inspired an ecological sensibility that fundamentally challenges the mechanistic understanding of reality. The world, according to ecology, is one that is internally related, complex, dynamic, constantly unfolding and evolving, uncertain, full of surprises, contextual, and (some would argue), mysterious. It is a world that can never be totally understood. A s John Livingston (1981, 65-6) puts it, \"The more [ecology] learns the more it discovers that it does not know. In fact, 'pure' ... ecologists claim to know only one thing for certain: that they wi l l never know one thing for certain.\" Despite this level of uncertainty, ecocentrists have turned to the science of ecology for inspiration, guidance, support, and information. Kirkpatrick Sale (1985, 50), for instance, bases his bioregional vision on the 'laws of nature' which include: natural regions, community, stability, cooperation, diversity, symbiosis, and evolution. Don Marietta, Jr. (1982, 162) argues for the development of an ecological ethic that is \"grounded in a world view which is informed by ecological knowledge and holistic ecological concepts.\" Such an ecological ethic takes as its moral obligation the maintenance of the ecological integrity of both ecosystems and the biosphere. The science of ecology both informs this ethic and helps us to carry out our moral obligations. 56 The social construction of ecological 'truths.' Others warn that there are limits to ecology's usefulness as a guide to the development of an ecological ethic and ecologically responsible actions (Bird 1987; Evernden 1985; Merchant 1987; Warren & Cheney 1991; Worster 1985, 1993). For one thing, ecology is an uncertain science in the sense that the truths of a world that is complex, interconnected, and dynamic can never be known absolutely. Furthermore, like all sciences, the truths of ecology are the product of social negotiations that are shaped by events in the scientific community and the cultural context within which these negotiations take place (Bird 1987; Merchant 1980, 1987; Worster 1985, 1993). A s an example, Karen Warren and Jim Cheney (1991, 182) point to current debates within the scientific community that \"reveal that there currently is no single model of ecosystems\" and therefore no single model around which an ecologically-informed perspective can be constructed. Donald Worster (1985) shows how different ecological models can be used to rationalize different attitudes and actions towards nature. In tracing the history of ecology from the 18th to 20th century, he reveals the tensions between organic and mechanistic ecological models of nature; the first searching for ways to live in communion with nature, the other seeking to dominate it. A s an example, he shows how 20th century bioeconomics or New Ecology is filled with mechanistic and economistic assumptions that reduce nature to a \"flow of good and services\u00E2\u0080\u0094or of energy\u00E2\u0080\u0094a kind of automated, robotized, pacified nature\" and that rationalize the efficient management of this 'nature' (313). This N e w Ecology, he argues, cannot provide the philosophical basis for an ecocentric perspective. 57 Although ecology can help us to understand and protect ecosystems, there is danger in the uncritical adoption of the 'laws of ecology' as inspiration and guidance for an ecocentric ethic (Bird 1987; Eckersley 1992; Evernden 1985; Livingston 1981; Naess 1989; Worster 1985, 1993). A s Elizabeth Bird (1987, 261) cautions: \"To cite the 'laws of ecology' as a basis for understanding environmental problems is to rely on a particular set of socially constructed experiences and interpretations that have their own political and moral grounds and implications.\" A s Robyn Eckersley (1992, 59) argues, \"appealing to the authority of nature (as known by ecology) is no substitute for ethical argument. Ecological science cannot perform the task of normative justification ... because it does not tell us why we ought to orient ourselves toward the world in a particular way.\" Ecology can suggest the way, but it cannot release us from our moral obligation to make ethical choices that w i l l ensure the flourishing of human and nonhuman life on this planet. 2.3 Implications for an Ethics-Based Planning A t the beginning of this chapter, I asked how planning can best respond to growing environmental problems so as to contribute to long-term sustainability. In response to the urgent calls for action emerging from within the sustainability discourse, an ethics-based planning that is consistent with an ecocentric perspective wi l l : (a) challenge the dominant structures and values of western industrial culture; (b) contribute to the cultivation of an ecocentric culture committed to the well-being of human and nonhuman nature; (c) adopt a participatory and emancipatory stance; and (d) be open to all knowledge and ways of 58 knowing that can help us to better understand and appropriately respond to the environmental crisis before us. In expanding on Friedmann's (1987) definition of planning as the translation of knowledge into action, this ethics-based planning encourages the active engagement of all in translating all relevant ways of knowing and ecocentric sensibilities into actions that sustain the well-being of human and nonhuman life on this planet. I return to this ecocentric planning framework in the final chapter. In the next chapter, I reflect on the urgent call for action emerging from within the sustainability discourse, and on the ecocentric call for cultural transformation, and raise feminist concerns about the marginalization of women's insights and experiences from the processes by which we come to understand and respond to the environmental crisis. Given the patriarchal nature of western culture, these concerns are not unfounded. 59 C H A P T E R 3 RAISING FEMINIST CONCERNS: T H E C A L L F O R A FEMINIST R E - F R A M I N G OF T H E E N V I R O N M E N T A L CRISIS 3.1 Raising Feminist Concerns In the previous chapter, I examined the ecocentric discourse and briefly outlined an ethics-based planning framework consistent with an ecocentric sensibility. I begin this chapter by asking whether this ethics-based planning will challenge the patriarchal nature of western culture, and mainstream planning in particular. As feminist planners point out, the patriarchal values and assumptions embedded in mainstream planning theories and practices serve to perpetuate gender inequities and to marginalize women and the feminine from the processes by which knowledge is translated into action (Beavis 1991; Birkeland 1991, 1993a, 1993b; MacGregor 1995; Milroy 1991; Sandercock & Forsyth 1992). In reflecting on the call for action emerging from within the sustainability discourse, and on the ecocentric call for cultural transformation, feminists and ecofeminists raise concerns about the marginalization of women's insights and experiences from male-dominated theories and practices that shape how we come to understand and respond to the ecological crisis 60 (Birkeland 1993a; Braidotti et al 1994; Doubiago 1989; D'Souza 1989, 1994; Forsey 1993; Harcourt 1994a; Hausler 1994; Larsen 1991; Mellor 1992; Salleh 1984, 1992; Seager 1993; Simmons 1992; Slicer 1994; Vance 1993; Wacker 1994; W E D O 1992). A s Helen Forsey (1993,48-9) puts it, I keep picking up books and articles by male environmentalists, hoping to find in them something that w i l l speak to me, that w i l l reflect and address my concerns for the planet and for humanity. Usually I search in vain amid their scholarly references and resounding platitudes for the familiar names of my wise and radical sisters who are doing so much of the urgently-needed creative thinking on critical environmental issues today. Ignorance or prejudice allows these men to ignore women's ideas, leadership and massive participation on the front lines of grassroots environmental organizing the world over ... For too many of these male authors, 51 percent of the world's human population does not even merit a line in their index. The point is not just that these women's ideas, actions, and concerns have been ignored by male theorists and activists and should now be included, but that these male-dominated discourses play a role in \"blocking out opportunities and perspectives that w i l l be indispensable for reaching the solutions they are anxious to find\" (Simmons 1992, 2). In marginalizing the critical perspectives that women bring to their activism, in hindering women's capacity to respond fully to the urgent call for action, and in reproducing patriarchy within the emerging theories and practices of the sustainability and ecocentric discourses, patriarchy is a serious barrier to sustainability. What is needed is a feminist reframing of the environmental crisis\u00E2\u0080\u0094a feminist framework capable of challenging both ecological destruction and the oppression of women (Braidotti et al, 1994; Harcourt 1994b; Seager 1993; Warren 1987, 1990). 61 The Call for a Transformative Feminism A s Karen Warren (1987, 4-5) points out, many feminists \"agree that there are important connections between the oppression of women and the oppression of nature\" but not all feminist frameworks provide an adequate theoretical grounding for a feminist reframing of the environmental crisis. In examining four leading feminist frameworks-liberal, Marxist, radical, socialist\u00E2\u0080\u0094she finds them \"inadequate, incomplete, or problematic\" (3). To different degrees, these feminist frameworks fail to adequately challenge belief systems and structures which justify and enable the domination of women and nonhuman nature. For Warren, liberal and Marxist feminists have serious shortcomings in that they do not adequately challenge the patriarchal, anthropocentric and mechanistic assumptions of western culture (8-13). Shaped by the liberal notion of the autonomous and rational individual, liberal feminism seeks for women\u00E2\u0080\u0094as fully autonomous and rational individuals-equal rights and opportunities within the context of western industrial society. To the extent that it also seeks rights for nonhuman nature, it does so within the context of western social structures and without challenging hierarchical dualisms and anthropocentric and mechanistic assumptions. Marxist feminism rejects the liberal notion of equal opportunity and locates women's oppression in the context of a class society dominated by a small male elite. While it challenges the domination of human by human on the basis of class, its economistic and class orientation fail to adequately challenge the gender-blindness of traditional Marxism and a western industrial model which reduces nonhuman nature to resources for human use. 62 Radical feminism and socialist feminism offer more promise but also raise some concerns (Warren 1987, 13-7). For radical feminism, women's oppression is located in the ways in which patriarchy defines women in terms of their biology (particularly their reproductive capacity) and seeks to control both women's bodies and their sexuality. A s embodied beings, women's personal and bodily experiences are politically significant. In challenging patriarchy, radical feminism challenges the disembodied mind-body and material-spiritual splits of western conceptual frameworks, validates embodied (eg. intuitive, emotional, spiritual) ways of knowing, and seeks to celebrate and value the embodied female self which has been devalued by patriarchy. In celebrating this embodied female self, however, many radical feminists have uncritically accepted patriarchal constructs of the female self. Furthermore, radical feminism pays little attention to patriarchal social structures and the interconnections between the domination of women, nature and other forms of oppression (eg. race, class). Socialist feminism integrates the insights of radical feminism with an emphasis on the role that social institutions play in the oppression of women. A s biological beings, both men and women are socially constructed into gendered beings whose nature is shaped by the particular contexts within which they find themselves. Women's experiences and perspectives are contextual and shaped by their particular social locations within a set of interlocking oppressions (eg. sex, race, class). In failing to explicitly address and challenge the systematic domination of nonhuman nature, however, socialist feminism is incomplete. 63 In addressing the inadequacies of these four feminist frameworks, Warren calls for \"an integrative and transformative feminism, one that... makes a responsible ecological perspective central to feminist theory and practice\" (1987, 17). According to Warren (1987, 1990, 1991, 1994b), this transformative feminism: (a) acknowledges the interconnectedness of all forms of oppression (e.g. sexism, racism, classism, naturism) and \"is a movement to end al l forms of oppression\" (1987, 18); (b) links the liberation of women to the elimination of domination in all its forms; (c) makes visible and challenges both a logic of domination which rationalizes oppression and \"uses of power which function to maintain, perpetuate, and justify ... oppressive relationships\" (1994b, 188); (d) takes seriously-in both theory and practice\u00E2\u0080\u0094the diversity of women's perspectives and experiences, and resists the search for one totalizing feminist theory or a 'universal' woman's voice; (e) reconstructs nonhierarchical notions of what it means to be human \"as both co-members of an ecological community and yet different from other members of it\" (1987, 19); and makes a central place for values such as care and friendship \"that presuppose that our relationships to others are central to our understanding of who we are\" (1990, 143). In making links between the domination of human and nonhuman nature, and in challenging both conceptual frameworks and social structures, this transformative feminism heals what Joan Griscom (1981, 4-5) calls the \"severe split between feminists who are primarily concerned with non-human nature and those who are primarily concerned with human history (race, class, sex).\" This split between what she calls 'nature' and 'social' feminists is a false one, she argues, in that human history (the social) unfolds in the context 64 of, and is part of, the unfolding of nature, just as \"our relation to nature is part of our history\" (5). We are embodied and social beings, shaped by and shaping the ecological and social contexts within which we live. Within a culture shaped by value-hierarchical thinking and interrelated structures of domination, the domination of human and nonhuman nature \"are inextricably fused\" in both theory and practice (6). In coming to an understanding of how these relations of domination are produced and reproduced, Griscom (6-8) argues that both 'nature' and 'social' feminists have special insights to offer. Social feminists can help us to understand the social structures that reproduce these relations of domination. Nature feminists can help us to challenge the conceptual splits that separate human from nonhuman nature, mind from body, and physical from spiritual; and help us to reclaim our embodied and ecological selves. In drawing from both 'nature' and 'social' feminists, a transformative feminism heals not only the split in feminist thought, but the false split between nature and culture. The Promise of Ecofeminism Ecofeminism makes such big promises! The convergence of ecology and feminism into a new social theory and political movement challenges gender relations, social institutions, economic systems, sciences, and views of our place as humans in the biosphere (Lahar 1991, 28). Through political activism and theoretical developments, ecofeminism introduces feminist insights into our understanding of the environmental crisis. As such, it promises to provide the best framework for challenging both ecological destruction and the oppression of 65 women. Drawing from ecology and feminism, ecofeminists attempt to make visible the links between the domination of women and the domination of nonhuman nature, and to challenge patriarchal constructs and practices which sanction and enable the domination of human and nonhuman nature (King 1989, 1990; Lahar 1991; Plant 1989; Warren 1987, 1990, 1994c). There is, however, no unified ecofeminist voice (Diamond & Orenstein 1990; Hessing 1992; Lahar 1991, Merchant 1990, 1992, 1996; Plant 1989; Plumwood 1993; Warren 1994a). A s Stephanie Lahar (1991, 28) comments, The newness of the movement, the breadth of issues it encompasses, and the diversity of people thinking and writing about ecofeminism have resulted in considerable confusion about what ecofeminism actually is, who ecofeminists are, and what they have to say ... In acknowledging the debates and differences within this emerging movement, Karen Warren (1987, 4-5) articulates what she considers to be \"a minimal condition account of eco-feminism\" : (i) there are important connections between the oppression of women and the oppression of nature; (ii) understanding the nature of these connections is necessary to any adequate understanding of the oppression of women and the oppression of nature; (iii) feminist theory and practice must include an ecological perspective; and (iv) solutions to ecological problems must include a feminist perspective. A n understanding of the connections between the domination of women and nonhuman nature is essential i f the roots of the present ecological crisis are to be adequately addressed (Birkeland 1993a; Diamond & Orenstein 1990; Forsey 1993; Gaard 1993c; K i n g 1989, 1990; Merchant 1980, 1981, 1989, 1996; Plant 1989; Simmons 1992; Warren 1987, 1990). Concerned about the patriarchal roots of the ecological crisis, ecofeminists raise concerns about the reproduction of patriarchy within the emerging theories and practices of the 66 ecocentric discourse (Birkeland 1993a; Forsey 1993; Plumwood 1992, 1993; Salleh 1984, 1992). A s they warn, unless the ecocentric discourse adequately challenges patriarchy in all its forms, it w i l l fail to transform western culture into an ecocentric one in which all of l i f e -human and nonhuman, both male and female-can flourish. In the following section, I explore an ecofeminist re-framing of the 'crisis of culture.' 3.2 Ecofeminism and the 'Crisis of Culture' Challenging the Patriarchal Nature of Western Culture In exposing the patriarchal nature of western culture, ecofeminists (a) challenge patriarchal conceptual frameworks, (b) explore the patriarchal roots of today's ecological crisis, and (c) uncover the historical association between women and nature. Patriarchal conceptual frameworks: A dominator consciousness. The false split between nature and culture has been challenged by ecocentrists in general, but it has been ecofeminists who have challenged the patriarchal nature of this culture-'nature1 dualism. Ecocentrism challenges anthropocentric and mechanistic values which legitimate the exploitation and domination of nonhuman nature in the name of, and for the good of, 'humanity' (Fox 1989). Ecofeminists deepen this critique by exposing androcentric values underlying culturally dominant notions of what it means to be fully human. While anthropocentrism places humans and human culture at the centre of moral consideration and 67 rationalizes the exploitation and domination of all that is 'not human,' ecofeminists argue that patriarchal conceptual frameworks privilege particular humans and ways of being in the world, and judges 'others' to be 'less human' and therefore less worthy of moral consideration. A s feminists and ecofeminists point out, a central feature of patriarchal conceptual frameworks is the privileging of men and a culturally defined masculinity and the marginalization and devaluation of women and a culturally defined femininity (Bordo 1986; D'Souza 1989; Gray 1982; Griffin 1978; Harding 1986, 1991; Holmstrom 1986; Merchant 1980, 1989; Pearsall 1986; Plumwood 1993; Warren 1987, 1990; Whitbeck 1986; Wilshire 1989). To be fully human in the context of western culture is to be male and masculine. The hierarchical ordering of human over nonhuman nature, male over female, are symptomatic of the dualisms embedded in western thought (D'Souza 1989; Gray 1982; Plumwood 1993; Warren 1987, 1990; Wilshire 1989). The effect of hierarchical dualisms is to hyperseparate \"aspects of reality that in fact are inseparable or complementary\" (Warren 1987, 6-7) and to rank diversity and difference so as to privilege and normalize one side of a duality while negating and inferiorizing the 'other.' The \"logic of domination\" (Warren 1987, 6) embedded in these hierarchical dualisms serves to rationalize the domination of the inferior other (Plumwood 1993; Warren 1987, 1990). As V a l Plumwood (1993, 47) points out, it is not the existence of difference between two things that makes a dualism, but \"rather the way the distinctions have been treated.\" Dualisms hyperseparate difference, deny commonalities and dependencies, and naturalize the domination of one over the other. In pointing to the dominator consciousness characterizing western culture, she offers the 68 following as a list of key dualisms within western thought: culture/nature; reason/nature; male/female; mind/body; master/slave; reason/matter; rationality/animality; reason/emotion; mind, spirit/nature; freedom/necessity; universal/particularity; human/nature (non-human); civilised/primitive; production/reproduction; public/private; subject/object; self/other (43). A s she points out, these dualisms reflect the major forms of oppression in western culture. In particular the dualisms of male/female, mental/manual (mind/body), civilised/primitive, human/nature correspond directly to and naturalise gender, class, race and nature oppressions respectively (43). They provide the basis for a worldview that is (among other things) anthropocentric, mechanistic, androcentric, class-centred, Eurocentric and ethnocentric (D'Souza 1989; Mies 1986; Plumwood 1993; Shiva 1988; Warren 1987, 1990). Concepts of gender are deeply embedded within these hierarchical dualisms (D'Souza 1989; Plumwood 1993; Wilshire 1989). Thus to read down the first side of the list of dualisms is to read a list of qualities traditionally appropriated to men and to the human while the second side presents qualities traditionally excluded from male ideals and associated with women, the sex defined by exclusion (Plumwood 1993, 44). The association of human identity with male, culture, mind, rationality, autonomy, the universal, production, public, and active subject; and the association of the inferior 'other' with female, nature, body, emotion, constraint, the particular, reproduction, private, and passive object underlie patriarchal constructs of gender within western culture. Within this complex set of hierarchical dualisms, the degree of'humanness' bestowed on any particular individual is shaped by where he or she finds herself in the context of this web of relations 69 (Plumwood 1993; Warren 1987, 1990). In the end, this patriarchal construct of what it means to be 'human' is one that only the privileged few-mainly white, western, male, able-bodied, heterosexual, middle class-can ever hope to live up to (Lorde 1984; Mies 1986; Seager 1993). A s a model for what it means to be human, it represents a '\"hegemonic masculinity' which, while it does not correspond to the actual personality of the majority of men, sustains patriarchal authority and legitimizes a patriarchal social and political order\" (Seager 1993, 8). This cultural description and prescription of what it means to be human exposes \"value judgments that have unnecessarily brought about human alienation from self, other, and planet and that have disastrously limited what we think is desirable and worth knowing\" (Wilshire 1989, 95). It severely limits how we understand and relate to ourselves and others as differentiated human beings, male and female, and how we understand and relate to other beings in the complex web of nature. A n d it legitimates the exploitation and domination of both human and nonhuman nature in the name of, and for the good of, a 'humanity' that, in reality, represents the interests of only the dominant few. The patriarchal roots of the ecological crisis. To the extent that the ecocentric discourse pays attention to historical and social forces, it exposes the ways in which dominant groups have disproportionately influenced the social negotiations that have produced inappropriate interactions with nonhuman nature. Ecofeminists expose the patriarchal nature of these historical forces. One of the central debates within ecofeminism, however, is between those who attribute all forms of domination to patriarchy and those who offer a more complex socio-historical analysis (Lahar 1991). Some ecofeminists argue that 70 there was a time when women and nature were not dominated (Eisler 1987, 1990; Spretnak 1990). Riane Eisler (1990, 23), for instance, claims that the Neolithic agrarian societies of Europe \"were not warlike. They were not societies where women were subordinate to men. A n d they did not see our Earth as an object for exploitation and domination.\" These ecofeminists locate the roots of domination in the arrival of patriarchal, sky-god worshipping, warlike societies beginning \"around 4500 B C with the Indo-European invasions of nomadic tribes from the Eurasian steppes\" (Spretnak 1990, 11). Ecofeminist critic Janet Biehl (1991, 46) argues that this \"reduction of the origin of hierarchy solely to 'invasions' [is] simplistic in the extreme.\" Attributing the rise of hierarchy to a single external factor ignores the complex internal as well as external factors that produce the \"complex transitions in social structures and values\" which give rise to systems of domination. Criticizing the tendency of some ecofeminists to reduce all hierarchy to patriarchy, Susan Prentice (1988, 9) argues that such reductionism \"trivializes several centuries of history, economics and politics by simply glancing over the formidable obstacles of social structures.\" In doing so, they not only ignore the intricate ways in which systems of domination (eg. capitalism, statism, racism, sexism) are interwoven and elaborated in all spheres of social life, but impede the development of an effective strategy for change. Other ecofeminists offer more complex analyses of the patriarchal nature of socio-historical forces that gave rise to today's environmental crisis (Griffin 1978; Ruether 1975; Mies 1986; Merchant 1980, 1987, 1989; Shiva 1988). The power of these complex analyses, argues Stephanie Lahar (1991, 34) is that, in making the convergence of cultural, scientific, 71 and economic factors historically accessible, we are better able to understand how to deconstruct them. A s she explains, I believe that the search for some singular and original seed of domination in the distant past does not really help us ... We should proceed, instead, to further develop models of the interlocking dynamics of oppression, so that when we are working for liberation in one area we are able to see links and contribute to opening up other areas as well . Although patriarchal relations can be traced back thousands of years (Berman 1989; Ruether 1975; Whitbeck 1986; Wilshire 1989), the ecological revolution that took place within 15th to 17th century Europe played an important role in shaping today's patriarchal constructs and structures (Ecologist 1993; Harding 1986, 1991; Mies 1986; Merchant 1980, 1987, 1989; Shiva 1988). In the context of the industrial and scientific revolutions, the emergence of capitalism, and the ecological revolution from organicism to mechanism, gender relations were transformed. The use of science to naturalize and rationalize women's subordinate position, the increasing domestication of women, and the marginalization and devaluation of women's productive activities all served to reduce women's sexual, intellectual, and economic independence. Accompanying these developments was the \"formation of a world view and a science that, by reconceptualizing reality as a machine rather than a living organism, sanctioned the domination of both nature and women\" (Merchant 1980, xvii) . Describing the transformation in gender relations that took place during this period as \"the enclosure of women,\" the Ecologist (1993, 38) argues that it \"has given rise to an almost universal male dominated and hierarchical system which is more intense, extreme and absolute than any form of patriarchy before.\" 72 In tracing the development and global expansion of this emerging European socio-economic model, Maria Mies (1986, 76) shows how the progress of elite European men was built on \"the subordination and exploitation of their own women, on the exploitation and ki l l ing of Nature, on the exploitation and subordination of other peoples and their lands.\" Vandana Shiva (1988) characterizes this western development model as 'maldevelopment' and argues that it has led to ecological destruction, gross social inequities, the destruction of women's productivity, and the marginalization of indigenous cultures. The Ecologist (1993, 21-58) calls this development model a form of'enclosure' in which lands and peoples have been increasingly placed under the control of a male-dominated European elite, and women under the control of men. Dispossessed, devalued, and exploited, these peoples have been left to bear a disproportionate share of the social, economic, and ecological costs of 'progress.' The patriarchal nature of this western development model has meant that it is women\u00E2\u0080\u0094particularly less privileged women in both the North and South\u00E2\u0080\u0094who have been the most dispossessed of all. Although women make up at least half the world's population, patriarchal economic, political, social, and cultural practices have served to reduce women to what the United Nations calls \"the non-participating majority\" ( U N D P 1993, 25). With women relegated to the margins, it is little wonder that ecofeminists question whether women\u00E2\u0080\u0094particularly less privileged women\u00E2\u0080\u0094have been as implicated as men in the social construction of today's environmental crisis (Eckersley 1992; Heller 1993a; Hutcheson 1995; Plumwood 1993). 73 In challenging both ecological destruction and the marginalization of women, most ecofeminists argue that the domination of women and nonhuman nature is part of a complex web of oppressions, and link the liberation of women and nonhuman nature to the elimination of domination in all its forms (Gaard 1993b; Gaard & Gruen 1993; Hutcheson 1995; K i n g 1989, 1990; Lahar 1993; Plumwood 1993; Ruether 1989; Warren 1987, 1990, 1994c). In doing so, they challenge those ecofeminists who reduce all forms of oppression to patriarchy. A s feminists and ecofeminists point out, this reductionist position posits a false universal subject, 'woman,' and erases the complexities, tensions, and contradictions in women's lives. It denies the differences and divisions among women, and masks the ways in which women themselves participate in a complex web of oppressive relations\u00E2\u0080\u0094sometimes as the oppressed, sometimes as the oppressor of both human and nonhuman nature (hooks 1984, 1988; Hutcheson 1995; Plumwood 1993; Seager 1993; Segal 1987). Deborah Sheer (1994, 32) argues that ecofeminists need to resist the temptation to reduce the complex web of multiple oppressions to a single root cause. A s she explains, ... even though we may be able to conceptualize to some significant degree one type of oppression without the other ... in this culture at this stage in our social evolution these forms of oppression are so inextricably connected that we cannot adequately understand one without understanding the role of the others, nor eliminate one and not the others. She maintains that the linking of the domination of nonhuman nature with the multiple ways in which humans oppress other humans \"constitutes ecofeminism's greatest insight. A n d finding theories and political strategies that effectively identify and eradicate these tangled oppressions is perhaps our greatest promise, and challenge\" (39). A t the same time, V a l Plumwood (1994, 78-9) warns against the merger of all social movements into one, and 74 proposes instead the notion of \"a network or web\" that acknowledges the interconnections between forms of oppression, the specificity of particular forms of oppression (such as that of women), and the tensions and differences between oppressions and forms of struggle. A s she argues, \"even i f struggles have a common origin point, a common enemy or conceptual structure, it does not follow that they then become the same struggle\" (78). The association of woman and nature. Feminists have long critiqued both the historical devaluation of women and the feminine, and the ways in which patriarchal views of woman's nature have been used to justify inequitable gender relations and the marginalization and exclusion of women from public life (Holmstrom 1986; James 1992; Pateman 1983; Pearsall 1986; Whitbeck 1986). Ecofeminists extend this feminist critique by analysing the symbolic association of woman with nature, and the devaluation and domination of both (Gray 1982; Griffin 1978; K ing 1989, 1990; Merchant 1980, 1989; Mies 1986; Roach 1991; Shiva 1988; Wilshire 1989). \"The basic argument is that in patriarchal culture, when women are seen as closer to nature than men, women are inevitably seen as less fully human than men\" (Roach 1991, 51). Carolyn Merchant (1980, 1989) traces the historical association of woman and nature, the changing metaphors of female nature, and the progressive devaluation of both women and nature in the course of ecological revolutions that occurred within European and North American society from the sixteenth century onwards. During sixteenth century Europe, for instance, two images of female nature existed\u00E2\u0080\u0094that of the nurturing mother, and that of the wi ld and uncontrollable female. While the image of the earth as nurturing mother had served to constrain human activities, nature as disorder called forth new 75 images of mastery and domination and sanctioned the exploitation of both women and nature (Merchant 1980). A s V a l Plumwood (1992, 9) points out, this historical association and devaluation of women and nature \"is by no means a thing of the past; it continues to drive the denigration of nature and of women's activity and indeed of the whole sphere of reproduction.\" While ecofeminists agree that women have been historically perceived to be closer to nature than men, and that the joint domination of women and nature must end, they disagree as to whether \"the woman/nature connection is potentially liberating - or simply an excuse for the continued oppression of women\" (King 1983, 12). Sherry Ortner's (1974) question \"Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?\" has become the focus of much debate within ecofeminist theory. Catherine Roach (1991, 52) identifies three different ecofeminist responses to this question: First, we can agree that women are closer to nature but disagree that this association must be disempowering. We can instead promote this association as enriching, liberating, and as according both women and nature high value. ... Second, we can stress that women are fully cultural beings and disagree that women are in any way closer to nature than men, rejecting this latter claim as false and as sexist biological reductionism. ... The third course of action ... rejects the nature-culture dichotomy of these first two options and seeks to minimize the strictness and antagonism of the male-female dichotomy, thereby opening the way for multiple possibilities of gender identity. The first response has been the focus of much debate. Robyn Eckersley (1992, 66) outlines two arguments that ecofeminists offer in claiming a closer connection between woman and nature. The body-based argument claims that women are closer to nature \"by virtue of what 76 is unique about women's bodies ... [and] is grounded in women's reproductive and associated nurturing capabilities.\" The oppression-based argument claims that \"the separate social reality of women that has resulted from the division of labour in patriarchal societies ... [is] the basis of an alternative, nurturing, and more caring morality.\" Both positions see \"the closer connection between women and nature ... as a source of special insight and empowerment for women.\" In response to a patriarchal culture which associates women with nonhuman nature and devalues both, these two positions seek to challenge this devaluation and to affirm this connection. V a l Plumwood (1993, 8) argues that the uncritical affirmation of the woman-nature connection has led to \"a romantic conception of both women and nature, the idea that women have special powers and capacities of nurturance, empathy and 'closeness to nature', which are unsharable by men.\" These special powers and 'closeness to nature' are often offered as reasons why women have a significant role to play in the resolution of the environmental crisis (Eckersley 1992, 66). But as Anne Archambault (1993, 21) explains, this position places the burden of saving the planet squarely on the backs of women. M e n cannot be expected to participate in this restoration project because they presumably lack the sensitivity to nature that women have. Women wi l l therefore simply end up in charge of cleaning up the global mess - fulfilling their traditional role as nurturing mothers. Associating this romantic position with ecofeminism as a whole, many feminists have declared ecofeminism to be essentialist, reactionary, and conservative in that it tends to uncritically accept and even celebrate existing patriarchal concepts of both women and nature 77 (Agarwal 1992; Biehl 1991; Prentice 1988; Seager 1993; Segal 1987). A reading of the ecofeminist literature, however, reveals that many ecofeminists share this concern (Buege 1994; Cheney 1987; Davion 1994; Hutcheson 1995; Lahar 1991; Plumwood 1992, 1993; Roach 1991; Warren 1987, 1990, 1994b, 1994c). V a l Plumwood (1993, 9), for instance, argues that the \"angel in the ecosystem\" myth promoted by these romantic claims is only plausible ... i f one practices a denial of the reality of women's lives, and not least a denial of the divisions between women themselves, both within the women's movement and in the wider society. Not all women are empathic, nurturant and co-operative. She calls this first position a feminism of'uncritical reversal' in that it simply reverses the masculine/feminine, culture/nature dualisms, affirming the superiority of the feminine over the masculine. In challenging these dualistic constructions, she calls for a \"critical ecological feminism in which women consciously position themselves with nature\" (21) while challenging patriarchal constructs that hyperseparate and devalue both woman and nature. Roach (1991) offers Sherry Ortner as an example of the second position. Ortner (1974, 87) denies that woman is \"any closer to (or further from) nature than man - both have consciousness, both are mortal. But there are certainly reasons why she appears that way.\" Pointing to the social institutions and cultural assumptions that have socially constructed women as closer to nature, she comments, \"Ultimately, both men and women can and must be equally involved in projects of creativity and transcendence. Only then w i l l women be seen as aligned with culture, in culture's ongoing dialectic with nature.\" Stephanie Lahar (1991, 54) argues that this position reinforces, rather than challenges, the nature-culture 78 dualism by insisting that \"women are just as 'cultural' and distanced from nature as men.\" A s Ynestra K i n g points out, this social constructivist position sees \"the severance of the woman-nature connection as a condition of women's liberation\" (King 1989, 22-23). Women are asked to deny their connection with nature and to join men in the social construction of a culture which continues to see itself as separate from nature. V a l Plumwood (1992, 1993) calls this position the feminism of'uncritical equality.' Critical of the masculine model endorsed by this position, she argues that it ... fails to notice that such a rationalist model of the human as exclusive of nature is one which writes in assumptions not only of gender supremacy, but also of class, race and species supremacy. The implicit masculinity and other biases of these models also mean that the hope of equality for women within them wi l l be largely illusory, except for a privileged few (Plumwood 1993, 28). In response, she calls for a critical feminism which challenges \"the ideals of both masculine and of human character\" and all forms of domination (29). For many ecofeminists, the question \"Is woman closer to nature?\" is conceptually flawed (Davion 1994; Gaard 1993b; Gaard & Gruen 1993; Griscom 1981; K i n g 1983, 1989; Lahar 1991; Merchant 1980; Plumwood 1992, 1993; Roach 1991; Sandilands 1993; Warren 1987, 1990). A s Joan Griscom (1981, 9) puts it, \"Since we are all part of nature, and since all of us, biology and culture alike, is part of nature, the question ultimately makes no sense.\" Catherine Roach (1991, 53) points out that culture evolves \"in\" nature, not outside of it. In no way can anyone or anything be \"closer to nature\" than any other being or thing because, through the inextricable implication of all in an environmental web of interconnection, all is already and equally \"natural,\" that is, part of nature, the environment, or the Earth ... A l l our actions and creations, even the most elaborate, 79 sophisticated products of our culture, are not totally apart from \"nature\" or the environment that gave rise to them. Karen Warren (1987, 15) argues that the question itself can only be meaningful i f one accepts the legitimacy of the culture-'nature' dualism; and to do so is to contradict the fundamental ecofeminist critique of western conceptual frameworks. A n y argument that locates women on either side of the nature/culture dualism \"mistakenly perpetuates the sort of oppositional, dualistic thinking for which patriarchal conceptual frameworks are criticized\" (15). Rosi Braidotti et al (1994, 74) wonder i f the whole debate \"between essentialism and constructivism is itself a consequence of dualistic thinking.\" In challenging either-or thinking, they \"propose to move beyond the essentialism-constructivism split. Women's reality is both embodied and engendered, and historically constituted, culturally specific and informed by class and race/ethnic relations\" (74-5). For many ecofeminists, the task is to dismantle the dualisms of western thought and to reconstruct notions of what it means to be human, male and female, in the context of a nature to which we belong (Lahar 1991; Plumwood 1991, 1992, 1993; Roach 1991; Warren 1987, 1990). \"Breaking the dualism involves affirming and reconceptualizing both nature and human identity, as well as reconceptualizing the relationship between them in non-hierarchical ways\" (Plumwood 1992, 12). For some, the reconceptualizing of identities and relationships is best achieved through active engagement in struggles to end domination. A s Braidotti et al (1994, 75) put it, If women take themselves seriously as social agents and as constitutive factors in this process, their praxis to end this double subjugation can be rooted not so much in women's equation with nature, but in taking responsibility for their own lives and environment. 80 Cultivating a Non-Hierarchical Culture In challenging the hierarchical and patriarchal nature of western culture, ecofeminists (a) call for the cultivation of a non-hierarchical consciousness, (b) support the notion of the relational self, (c) advocate for an ecofeminist ethic of care, and (d) call for the recovery of subjugated knowledges. Cultivating a non-hierarchical consciousness. In challenging the dominator consciousness of western culture, ecofeminists call for the reconceptualization of what it means to be human, male and female and in all our differences, within the wider context of a nature to which we belong; and challenge us to reconceptualize what it would mean to think about, and relate to each other and the earth in non-dualistic and non-hierarchical ways (Diamond & Orenstein 1990; Gaard 1993c; Kheel 1990; K i n g 1990; Lahar 1991; Plant 1989; Plumwood 1991, 1992, 1993; Warren 1987, 1990, 1994b). Central to this reconceptualization is the dismantling of the hierarchical dualisms and masculinist identities embedded in western thought. Challenging dualisms, argues V a l Plumwood (1993, 60) \"requires the reconstruction of relationship and identity in terms of a non-hierarchical concept of difference.\" She suggests five features of relationships and identities based on this concept: (1) where hierarchical dualisms deny the importance of, and dependence on the inferior other, a non-hierarchical concept of difference acknowledges dependencies and \"the contribution of what has been backgrounded\"; (2) where hierarchical dualisms hyperseparate the self from the inferior other, a non-hierarchical concept of difference affirms continuity 81 and recognizes commonalities and overlap; (3) where hierarchical dualisms define the inferior other in relation to the superior self, a non-hierarchical notion of difference examines \"the identities of both underside and upperside\" and seeks to \"rediscover a language and story for the underside, reclaim positive independent sources of identity and affirm resistance\"; (4) where hierarchical dualisms place the other in the service of the self, a non-hierarchical notion of difference recognizes \"the other as a centre of needs, value and striving on its own account, a being whose ends and needs are independent of the self and to be respected\"; and (5) where hierarchical dualisms disregard and deny differences within inferiorized groups, a non-hierarchical concept of difference recognizes \"the complexity and diversity of the 'other nations' which have been homogenised and marginalized\" (60). In challenging the mechanisms of dualism, this concept of non-hierarchical difference locates the self in the context of \"a complex, interacting pattern of both continuity and difference\" and non-hierarchical relations between self and other (67). A s Plumwood warns, however, the transition from dualism to non-hierarchical constructs is fraught with difficulties and challenges. Beginning as it does from within the context of a culture shaped by hierarchical dualisms, the challenge is to construct new identities and relationships that do not simply replace one dualism with another; and that sufficiently challenge the distorted and subordinated identities within existing dualisms. She identifies three traps that need to be negotiated in reclaiming and affirming subordinated identities: the Cavern of Reversal; the Desert of Difference; and the Swamp of Affirmation (Plumwood 1993, 59-68). In the Cavern of Reversal the 'other' reacts to the inferiorization of 82 the self by simply reversing value; uncritically affirming the subordinated identity and devaluing what once had been dominant. In doing so, the subordinated other replaces one dualism with another and fails to adequately challenge dualistic identities. A s an example, the uncritical reversal of gender identities and the valuing of female/feminine over male/masculine reverses the male-female dualism without challenging gender identities constructed within and distorted by patriarchal constructs. In the Desert of Difference, the 'other' reacts to the hierarchical ordering and exaggeration of difference by denying difference and seeking \"merger, the elimination of the problematic boundary between the one and the other\" (59). In doing so, this position denies real differences and risks the dissolution of the other into the identity of the dominant self. In failing to challenge the distortion of rather than the existence of difference, the other fails to reclaim a distinct identity free of the colonizing logic of dualism. Thus, to deny that differences between men and women exist, rather than to challenge the patriarchal distortion of these differences, is to risk dissolving women's identities into the dominant masculine culture and to leave women without positive identities that can serve as a basis for resistance and political action. The Swamp of Affirmation represents the challenge of reclaiming liberatory identities without uncritically affirming identities distorted by dualism or denying the differences that provide the basis for these distortions. In reflecting on the male-female dualism, Plumwood argues, \"Affirmation is essential to counter the logic of the master subject, who inferiorises women ... but it must be a critical and qualified one\" (63). The challenge is to critically reconstruct woman's identity in ways that: acknowledge difference without accepting the hierarchical ordering of this difference; acknowledge continuities without merger; transcend patriarchal distortions of 83 differences; and affirm those subordinated qualities that have real value. A s she puts it, \"We can reject women's powerlessness without also rejecting the entire content of women's lives and roles and the areas of culture which have been assigned low status\" (65). In recognizing the complex web of oppressions within which gender identities have been constructed, however, Plumwood emphasizes that this process also requires a critical examination of how women themselves have, to various degrees, participated in the inferiorization of other subordinated identities (eg. race, class, species). In the end, the reconstruction of non-. hierarchical identities requires the critical reconstruction of both the subordinated and dominant identities. For western women, this involves critically challenging all of the ways in which they have absorbed \"the western construction of the human\" (67). The relational self. The call for the critical reconstruction of nondualistic human and gender identities has left ecofeminists uneasy with many of the notions of the ecological self proposed within the ecocentric discourse. While ecocentrists call for the cultivation of an ecological self, ecofeminists problematise the identity of this self and critically examine the extent to which the ecocentric discourse adequately challenges the hierarchical dualisms embedded in culturally dominant notions of what it means to be human (Cheney 1987; Kheel 1990; Lahar 1991; Plumwood 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994; Warren 1987, 1990; Zimmerman 1990). In pointing to the male-dominated discourse of deep ecology, ecofeminists argue that critiques of anthropocentrism and notions of the ecological self are based primarily on men's experiences and masculinist notions of the self (Kheel 1990; Plumwood 1991, 1992, 1993; Salleh 1984, 1992; Zimmerman 1990). A s Marti Kheel (1990, 129) points out, since \"men 84 and women, under patriarchal society, experience the world, and hence their conceptions of self, in widely divergent ways,\" gender-blind analyses risk the promotion of concepts that ignore women's and other marginalized peoples experiences and identities, and that perpetuate masculinist ways of being. While ecofeminists support the recovery of a wholeness that reconnects the individual to all the parts of the self as well as to the larger context within which the self is embedded, they express concern as to how this wholeness and the holistic self are conceived, expressed and recovered. In examining three accounts of the ecological self, V a l Plumwood (1991, 12-6; 1993, 173-82) finds them all \"unsatisfactory, both from a feminist perspective and from that of obtaining a satisfactory environmental philosophy\" (1993, 176). Deep ecology attempts to address the separation of humans and nature by urging identification of self with the larger Self such that: (1) the self merges with, and becomes indistinguishable from, the cosmic whole (the holistic self); (2) the self expands in empathy to identify with other beings in the universe (the expanded self); or (3) the particular self is transcended in favour of an impartial identification with the cosmos (the transcended self). Plumwood argues that the 'holistic self merely reverses the dualism between atomism and holism and fails to deal adequately with the concept of 'authentic human being' by denying both our continuity with, and distinctiveness and independence from, nonhuman nature. Stephanie Lahar (1991, 37) adds that, in the context of oppression, holism can ... endanger our lives by undermining the integrity of individuals and their special needs and interests. Women and other oppressed categories of people should be especially wary of paradigms that could be construed as advocating the sacrifice of 85 individual needs to a 'greater whole'\u00E2\u0080\u0094whether that be the family, society, or 'Gaia,' a planetary entity. The 'expanded self merely enlarges and extends the boundaries of the egoistic self, imposing both the self and self-interest onto a selected few with whom one identifies. \"Others are recognised morally only to the extent that they are incorporated into the self, and their difference denied\" (Plumwood 1993, 180). In striving for an impartial and universal identification with the cosmos, the 'transcended' or 'transpersonal self discards and devalues our identifications, attachments and concerns with particular places within this cosmos. In doing so, it promotes an abstract sense of self which perpetuates the dualistic opposition of reason/emotion, universal/particular, and which denies the very connections that give meaning and provide guidance to the particular relationships that people have with nonhuman nature. The promotion of an abstract universal and rational self, and the devaluation of the particular and emotional, serve to reinforce masculinist notions of what it means to be authentically human (181-2). Similarly, while supporting the ecocentric notion of the 'embodied self,' feminists argue that patriarchal culture has transformed bodily differences between men and women into distorted notions of masculinity and femininity such that men's and women's relationships to their bodies cannot be taken as unproblematic (Heller 1993a, 1993c; K i n g 1990; Spretnak 1991). In advocating for a recovery of women's erotic identities, for instance, Chaia Heller (1993a, 148) argues: The erotic is a vital quality, a power of which most women have been deprived. Women all over the planet have been barraged by patriarchal 86 ideologies which brainwash us to hate our bodies, to mistrust our deepest feelings and intuitions. In addition, the constant threat of male violence, which keeps so many of us afraid both at home and on the streets, drains the joy from our bodies, makes us weary and [defeated]. Few women in the world move and work with a feeling of embodied confidence and pleasure. For feminists and ecofeminists, this recovery of 'embodied confidence' is a challenge for all marginalized peoples, and women in particular, whose bodies have been devalued, controlled, and violated (hooks 1984, 1988; Lorde 1984; Mies 1986; Riley 1993; Smith 1993; Wil l iams 1993). For many ecofeminists, embodiment is closely associated with the recovery of the 'spiritual self\u00E2\u0080\u0094the embodied self connected in intricate ways to both human and nonhuman nature (Adams 1993; Feldman 1990; Heller 1993c; Plaskow & Christ 1989; Spretnak 1991, 1993; Starhawk 1982, 1987). This embodied, spiritual self directly challenges patriarchal notions of the disembodied, transcendent, and masculine spiritual self. A s Carol Adams (1993, 1) points out, \"When patriarchal spirituality associates women, body, and nature, and then emphasizes transcending the body and transcending the rest of nature, it makes oppression sacred.\" In recovering this embodied spiritual self, however, she warns against the romanticization, misappropriation and misunderstanding of spiritual practices of earth-based cultures struggling for survival on the margins of western culture (3). To separate the spiritual from the political, and to appropriate spiritual practices while ignoring the struggles of marginalized peoples, is to ignore our own complicity, as western peoples, in the marginalization of embodied and earth-loving spiritual practices. For ecofeminists, the concept of self that best challenges the dualistic and masculinist structures of western thought is that of the 'relational self or the 'self-in-relationship' (Cheney 87 1987; Plumwood 1991, 1993; Warren 1987, 1990, 1994b; Warren & Cheney 1991). The relational self locates the individual in the context of \"both social and ecological communities\" and in noninstrumental relationship with \"earth others\" (Plumwood 1993, 154). Consistent with the ecocentric principles of internal relatedness and notions of the 'relatively autonomous self (Eckersley 1992, 53), the relational self is \"formed by, bound to and in interaction with others through a rich set of relationships which are essential to and non incidental to his or her project\" (Plumwood 1993, 156). A s Karen Warren (1990, 143) explains, Humans are who we are in large part by virtue of the historical and social contexts and the relationships we are in, including our relationships with nonhuman nature. Relationships are not something extrinsic to who we are ... they play an essential role in shaping what it means to be human. Neither merged with nor separate from this web of relationships, the relational self negotiates the tensions between dependence and separateness, continuity and difference (Plumwood 1993, 156-7). Within the context of these relationships, the relational self recognises both common membership in the earth community, and the limits imposed on the self by respect for the 'earth other' as its own \"centre of agency or intentionality\" (159). An ecofeminist ethic of care. The concept of the ecological self as 'relational self is \"one which includes the goal of the flourishing of earth others and the earth community among its own primary ends, and hence respects or cares for these others for their own sake\" (Plumwood 1993, 154). In contrast to the instrumental relationships of western culture, the self-in-relationship recognizes the intrinsic value of self and other, respects differences and 88 values connections, and provides the basis for \"an ethic of connectedness and caring for others\" (Plumwood 1991, 20). Such an ethic is inclusive, contextual, and makes a central place for values that express our capacity to care for human and nonhuman earth others (Cheney 1987; K ing 1991; Plumwood 1993; Warren 1990, 1994b; Warren & Cheney 1991). It is inclusive in that it recognises the differences that exist among and between earth others, and makes a central place for the emerging voices of those whose identities, knowledges, and values have been inferiorized and subordinated within the dominant culture (D'Souza 1989, 1994; Haraway 1991; Lahar 1991; Plumwood 1993; Shiva 1993; Warren 1987, 1990, 1994b; Warren & Cheney 1991). It is contextual in that it recognises the particular contexts, as well as the diversity of ways, in which we come to know, care for, and respect earth others (Cheney 1987; Plumwood 1993; Warren 1990). It makes a central place for values \"such as care, respect, gratitude, sensitivity, reverence and friendship\" (Plumwood 1993, 183). These values \"presuppose that our relationships to others are central to our understanding of who we are\" (Warren 1990, 143). As V a l Plumwood (1993, 182-8) points out, this ethic of care offers an alternative to the dominant universal, rational, and rights-based ethical framework. It resists the temptation to develop one all-encompassing ethic, speaking instead \"not in one voice but in a number of different political voices\" that give expression to sometimes conflicting concerns, particular and personal as well as more general and collective (188). It challenges the subordination of the personal and particular to an abstract universal ethic, and makes the development of some wider concern \"a question not of transcending or detaching the self from particular, personal moral commitments, but in part at least of understanding or coming to see the relationship between these particular commitments and local situations and 89 those of distant others\" (187). It challenges \"the dominance of instrumental relationships in the public sphere\" and the relegation of an ethic of care to the private sphere; and challenges the reason/emotion dualism which constructs emotion as \"the underside of reason, so that it is identified as an unreliable, unreflective, irrational and sometimes uncontrollable force reason must dominate\" (189). The construction of an ethic of care, however, is not without its problems. While agreeing with ecofeminists in their efforts to construct an ethics of care, Roger K i n g (1991, 76) reflects on relationships with nonhuman others and argues that \"we need to become clearer about what it means to care about nature.\" In the context of our anthropocentric and increasingly urbanized societies, both women and men are more and more cut off from direct relationships with nature, and many \"do not care very deeply about the fate of nonhuman beings and systems\" (84). Similarly, feminists and ecofeminists caution against the uncritical adoption of an ethic of care shaped by patriarchal constructs. Within patriarchy, women and the feminine have long been associated with notions of care that are privatised, devalued, self-sacrificing and isolating; and that fail to acknowledge and nourish men's capacity to care (Lahar 1991; Plumwood 1993; Tronto 1989). Furthermore, V a l Plumwood (1993, 188) reminds us that an ethic of care can be either \"socially progressive or socially regressive\" depending on whether it serves to maintain or challenge existing relations of domination. We can care for those who dominate others, and in our caring uphold ways of being that are socially and/or ecologically destructive. Despite these problems, she argues that \"the care model has a major contribution to make to understanding alternatives to the dominant 90 instrumental models.\" Without arguing that women are intrinsically more capable of caring for others, she insists that, to the extent that they bring noninstrumentalizing values and practices to the public sphere, they \"indeed have something highly valuable to offer\" (188). Ecofeminists call for an ethic of care as a guide to noninstrumental relationships with self and earth others, in both our personal lives and the wider context. Such an ethic challenges distorted notions of care that place the subordinated other in the service of the dominant self, and reclaims our capacity to care for self and earth others (Cheney 1987, 1994; Heller 1993b; K i n g 1991; Plumwood 1993; Tronto 1989). The recovery of subjugated knowledges. In challenging a dominator consciousness and relations of domination, ecofeminists call for the recovery of the multiplicity of marginalized voices, and the diversity of women's voices in particular; and argue that they offer critical and creative perspectives that can help us to better understand and respond to the crises before us (D'Souza 1989, 1994; Haraway 1991; Harding 1991; Lahar 1991; Plumwood 1993; Shiva 1988, 1993; Warren 1987, 1990, 1994b; Warren & Cheney 1991). The recovery of these \"hidden knowledges,\" argues Corinne Kumar D'Souza (1994, 90), can help us to challenge the hegemony of the dominant discourse and \"to find fresh spaces, to generate new imaginations, to invent new political patterns, to create, perhaps, new possibilities o f change for our times.\" V a l Plumwood (1993, 196) reminds us that these sources of understanding and inspiration exist both within \"subordinated and ignored parts of western culture\" and in \"the sustaining stories of cultures we have cast as outside reason.\" Donna Haraway (1991, 191) argues that these subjugated perspectives \"are preferred because they seem to promise 91 more adequate, sustained, objective, transforming accounts of the world.\" In favouring an \"anti-patriarchalist inclusiveness,\" Karen Warren (1994b, 188) explains, those claims are morally, epistemologically, and politically favored (preferred, better, less biased) which are more inclusive of the felt experiences and perspectives of oppressed persons from a nonpatriarchalist perspective. Those claims which exclude or conflict with such perspectives are viewed as more biased, more partial, less preferred. Insisting on the full inclusion of \"a multiplicity of voices, especially women's voices ... across cross-cultural contexts,\" she argues that \"failure to include what women know ... is to perpetuate patriarchalist, non-inclusivist bias\" (188). In supporting the recovery of these subjugated knowledges, Donna Haraway (1991, 188-89) reminds us that these are \"situated and embodied knowledges\" and are therefore, always partial. It is this partiality, she argues, that offers the possibilities for the \"connections and unexpected openings\" that can lead to new collective visions and understandings (196). As she explains, The knowing self is partial in all its guises, never finished, whole, simply there and original; it is always constructed and stitched together imperfectly, and therefore able to join with another, to see together without claiming to be another\" (193). In contrast to the disembodied \"view from nowhere\" that characterizes western culture's search for universal constructs, Haraway argues for \"the joining of partial views and halting voices into a collective subject position that promises a vision of the means of ongoing finite embodiment, of l iving within limits and contradictions, i.e., of views from somewhere\" (196). In the context of complexity, real differences, and relations of domination, she argues for \"politics and epistemologies of location, position, and situating\" and for \"power-sensitive, not pluralist, 'conversation'\" (191-5). 92 The recovery of these subjugated knowledges and partial perspectives is not without its problems (Eckersley 1992; Davion 1994; Haraway 1991; Plumwood 1993). In warning against the \"danger of romanticizing [sic] and/or appropriating the vision of the less powerful,\" Haraway (1991, 191) reminds us that \"the positionings of the subjugated are not exempt from critical re-examination, decoding, deconstruction, and interpretation. The standpoints of the subjugated are not 'innocent' positions.\" In reflecting on the tendency of some ecofeminists to uncritically privilege women's perspectives, for example, Robyn Eckersley (1992, 67) reminds us that there is a difference between \"privileging\u00E2\u0080\u0094rather than simply rendering visible and critically incorporating\u00E2\u0080\u0094the special insights of women.\" She admits that the fact that \"women have been less implicated than men in major activities and centers of ecological destruction ... is itself an excellent reason to hear what women have to say on the subject of ecological reconstruction.\" But she warns against an over-identification with, and uncritical acceptance of women's perspectives. A s she explains, Such an over-identification can sometimes inhibit the general emancipatory process by offering an analysis that can (i) deny the extent to which many women may be complicit in the domination of nature; (ii) overlook the various ways in which men have been oppressed by limiting 'masculine stereotypes'; and (iii) be blind to other social dynamics, institutions, and prejudices that do not bear on the question of gender. Moreover [it] can sometimes lead to a lopsided and reductionist analysis of social and ecological problems (67). To be a truly emancipatory framework, ecofeminists \"must be. able to critically incorporate the special experiences and perspectives of all oppressed social groups, not just women\" (70). 93 3.3 The Call for an Action-Oriented Ecofeminism The Conceptual Preoccupation of Ecofeminism Without discounting the importance of challenging patriarchal conceptual frameworks and reconceptualizing human and gender identity, some feminists and ecofeminists express concern that ecofeminist theory has developed primarily within the conceptual realm and has paid less attention to socio-political structures and the lived realities of women (Agarwal 1992; Biehl 1991; D i Chiro 1992; Lahar 1991; Prentice 1988; Seager 1993). Susan Prentice (1988, 10) worries that this conceptual focus promotes idealist strategies for changing \"male thinking\" and diverts attention away from the social structures that keep systems of domination in place. Joni Seager (1993, 2-13) argues that, in seeking to understand the roots of the environmental crisis, the masculinist and male-dominated nature of western structures cannot be ignored. A s she emphasizes, \"It is folly to ignore the fact that virtually all of the institutions, bureaucracies, and groups fanned out across the environmental spectrum are run by men in pursuit of male-defined objectives\" (6). In particular, she points to four significant institutional players: the militaries, multinationals, governments, and the eco-establishment (as distinguished from grassroots environmental groups). The first three, she argues, \"are primary agents of environmental degradation\" while the fourth plays a major role in \"setting the environmental agenda, and framing the ways in which we perceive environmental crisis\" (4). It is significant, she argues, that the institutions \"that control virtually all decisions and actions that shape our environment\" are shaped by masculinist assumptions about appropriate 94 behaviour and by the interests of male-dominated decision-makers (5). A feminist analysis of the environmental crisis \"starts with the understanding that environmental problems derive from the exercise of power and the struggle of vested interest groups played out on a physical tableau\" (3). In the context of male-dominated structures and differences in power and interests, the task for feminists is to develop an analysis of environmental problems \"that makes agency clear\" (3) and that is \"rooted in uncovering the workings of gender\" (4). In uncovering the workings of gender, some feminists and ecofeminists point to patriarchal structures that need to be challenged in the process of transforming western culture. O f particular concern to Janet Biehl (1991, 134-42) is ecofeminism's failure to take seriously issues of citizenship, democratic decision-making processes, and women's active participation in public life. Given ecofeminism's focus on home and community \"as the locus of ecological struggle\" (134), she reminds us that community life can be regressive, parochial, and \"notoriously oppressive to women\" (135) and that a liberatory democratic process is crucial for a \"community life that is liberatory for women\" (136). Some ecofeminists share Biehl's concerns and caution against the romanticization of home and community. A s they argue, many of the identities and relationships within these sites have been, and continue to be oppressive to women, other marginalized peoples, and the earth (Biehl 1991; Fike & Kerr 1995; Forsey 1993; Plant 1990a, 1990b, 1993). While supporting the bioregional call for an expanded notion of community and a revaluation of home \"as one that includes the local community and the other beings with whom we share that community,\" Michelle Summer Fike and Sarah Kerr (1995, 26) argue that without a feminist 95 analysis, \"there is a danger of revaluing a home that is no different from the one that restricts so many women's lives today.\" While supporting the call for the exercise of non-hierarchical forms of power, they argue that \"none of these new forms of power can be realized without addressing the very real power imbalances that women are faced with every day\" (25). To the extent that ecofeminists pay attention to structures, they support the call for nonhierarchical and democratic structures and highlight the need to radically transform the hierarchical and patriarchal nature of western structures. Chaia Heller (1993a, 156-7), for instance, urges us to \"create and revive structures which allow for the greatest levels of creativity and democracy in society. These structures must be non-hierarchical and must encourage the greatest level of participation and collectivity.\" She calls for \"an 'erotic democracy' that decentralizes power and allows for direct, passionate participation in the decisions that determine our lives\" (Heller 1993b, 240). It is through these participatory structures that we can engage our bodily, erotic selves and realize \"our potential for passionate, creative expression, our desire to know and to be known within a compassionate, ecological society\" (241). For women to engage fully in this process, however, they must be free from the threat of male violence and the patriarchal control of their bodies, sexuality, and reproduction; free from workplaces that threaten their health and devalue their bodily labour; free from systems of governance that marginalize their bodily presence and stifle the expression of their passionate, engaged selves; free from economies that distort their needs and desires and disconnect them from any sense of belonging to the ecological whole; and free from cultural institutions that deny their capacity for creativity and knowing (Heller 96 1993 a, 157-60). In other words, for women to engage fully and passionately in an 'erotic democracy,' it is essential that we challenge patriarchal structures that maintain and reproduce the subordination, marginalization, and domination of women. Patriarchal Structures O f particular concern to feminists are the complex and shifting ways in which biological differences between men and women are socially transformed into inequitable gender relations and reflected and reproduced in and through the policies, practices, roles, and condoned behaviours of western social, political, economic, and cultural institutions (Seager 1993; Segal 1987; Walby 1989; Warren 1994c; Weedon 1987). Arguing that patriarchy can take different forms in different times, places, and cultures, and that women's experiences of patriarchy are mediated by their diverse social locations (eg. race and class), Sylvia Walby (1989, 214) identifies six patriarchal structures that shape gender relations within the context industrial cultures: the patriarchal mode of production, patriarchal relations in paid work, patriarchal relations in the state, male violence, patriarchal relations in sexuality, and patriarchal relations in cultural institutions, such as religion, the media and education. Within each of these structures it is possible to identify sets of patriarchal practices which are less deeply sedimented. Together, this complex of patriarchal structures and practices acts to marginalize and subordinate women both within the home and in public life (227-8). 97 The first two structures identified by Walby represent two dimensions of patriarchal economic structures. Within the patriarchal mode of production, a gendered division of labour assigns to women a disproportionate share of the unpaid domestic work and enables men\u00E2\u0080\u0094particularly husbands\u00E2\u0080\u0094to expropriate women's labour for free and to their benefit. Patriarchal relations in paid work result in \"the exclusion of women from paid work or the segregation of women within it\" (Walby 1989, 223). The effect of these patriarchal economic relations, feminists argue, is that the bulk of the work that women do in the home and in the community is undervalued and rendered invisible, the bulk of the work that women do in the paid workplace is devalued and underpaid, and women themselves are rendered 'unproductive,' economically insignificant, and either economically dependent on men or poor (Brandt 1995; Leghorn & Parker 1981; Mies 1986; Shiva 1988; Waring 1988). A third structure, the patriarchal state, is a complex set of relations with sometimes contradictory strategies, that nevertheless plays a significant role in producing and reproducing patriarchal relations. A s Walby (1989, 224) argues, \"Women are excluded from access to state resources and power\" by virtue of their under-representation within state decision-making bodies, but most significantly by virtue of a gendered politics which leaves women with less political power to affect key decisions of the state. A s feminists argue, this gendered politics plays a significant role in defining what is 'political' and therefore worthy of public attention, and what is 'private' and therefore outside the domain of public concern (Bock & James 1992; James 1992; Pateman 1983, 1992; Phillips 1991). The effect of this gendered politics and male-dominated state sub-structures is to marginalize women from 98 decision-making processes, to frame issues in androcentric terms, and to promote policies, practices, legislation, and regulations that reflect and reinforce patriarchal notions of 'appropriate' gender relations. As Walby (1989, 224) argues, these patriarchal notions and practices have significant impact on gender relations by virtue of the ways they shape state rulings related to, for instance, divorce and marriage, fertility, wage discrimination, sexuality, male violence, and belief systems. Walby (1989, 224) argues that male violence cannot be explained away on the basis of individual psychological abnormalities. As a patriarchal structure, male violence consists of \"a set of various practices including: rape, wife-beating, father/daughter incest, flashing, sexual harassment at work, sexual assault.\" Whether or not individual men choose to engage in any of these practices, their existence as \"a regular social form and ... women's well-founded expectations of its routine nature\" act to structure women's lives. A s Walby points out, \"Most women significantly alter their conduct and patterns of movement as a consequence of fear of male violence\" (225). Feminists have long argued that male violence plays a significant role in controlling women and keeping them in their place (Brownmiller 1975; Caputi 1992; Griffin 1982, 1986; Hanmer 1978; Leghorn & Parker 1981; Mies 1986; Roberts 1983; Schechter 1982). Closely related to male violence, which is acted out on women's bodies, are patriarchal relations in sexuality which seek to control women's (and men's) bodies and women's reproductive capacities by defining as 'normal' one form of sexuality\u00E2\u0080\u0094 99 heterosexuality--and by promoting 'appropriate' sexual practices which reflect and reproduce inequitable gender relations. The effect is to construct marriage as the preferred option for women and to discourage intimate friendships with other women. Like male violence, sexuality \"is a set of social practices, and cannot be reduced to the psychological or biological levels\" (Walby 1989, 226). Patriarchal relations in sexuality are reflected in dominant attitudes and practices around, and feminist struggles over, issues such as abortion, reproductive rights, child birth and childcare, women's health, pornography, homophobia, and female desire (Currie & Raoul 1992; Zita 1992); and are interlinked with \"other social oppressions such as racism, classism, ageism, and physicalism\" (Zita 1992, 490). A s Jane Flax (1990, 51-2) points out, \"both men's and women's understanding of anatomy, biology, embodiedness, sexuality, and reproduction is partially rooted in, reflects, and must justify (or challenge) preexisting gender relations.\" These understandings and socially condoned practices have a profound effect on how we understand and experiences ourselves as embodied beings. Finally, Walby (1989, 227) argues that patriarchal culture, as a structured set of diverse practices, \"is best analysed as a set of discourses which are institutionally-rooted.\" Although these discourses vary to the degree that they are shaped by \"age, class and ethnicity in particular,\" they share a common purpose\u00E2\u0080\u0094\"the differentiation of masculinity from femininity\" (227). Cultural institutions such as religions, educational systems and the media play an important role in constructing and reproducing culturally dominant notions of what it means to be male and female and in enacting forms of patriarchal closure against women. A s 100 Walby emphasizes, however, these \"[discourses on femininity and masculinity\" are not contained within these cultural institutions, but are \"institutionalized in all sites of social life\" (227). In the workplace, for instance, patriarchal notions of what is 'appropriate' work for men and women is closely linked to, and reinforced by, patriarchal notions of masculinity and femininity. Joni Seager (1993) argues that institutionalized patriarchal notions of masculinity and femininity, together with practices of patriarchal closure, play a significant role in shaping institutions that are not only hierarchical, but male-dominated and masculinist. They are masculinist in that they promote \"a type of culturally dominant masculinity that, while it does not correspond to the actual personality of the majority of men, sustains patriarchal authority and legitimizes a patriarchal social and political order\" (1993, 8). Janis Birkeland (1993a, 25) argues that the assumptions of power built into this masculinist culture serve to legitimate coercive and hierarchical power relations. \"In other words, i f Mankind is by nature autonomous, aggressive, and competitive (that is, 'masculine'), then psychological and physical coercion or hierarchical structures are necessary to manage conflict and maintain social order.\" A s Seager (1993, 7) points out, the effect of this masculinist culture within institutions is that \"structures can be so rooted in masculinist presumptions that even were women in charge of these structures, they would retain the core characteristics that many feminists and progressive men find troubling.\" She notes, however, that for the most part women have not been in charge, and that these masculinist structures are also male-dominated ones. Despite the fact that most men don't feel very powerful in their own lives, 101 culturally dominant notions of masculinity, together with the predominance of men in positions of institutional power, serve to reproduce and reinforce gender hierarchies, promote 'masculinist' behaviour, and privilege the knowledge, experiences, and interests of men in general and elite men in particular (8). The Call for an Action-Oriented Ecofeminism There have been some attempts within ecofeminism to link theory and action (Berman 1993, 1995; Caldecott & Leland 1983; Hamilton 1990; Hessing 1993; Hutcheson 1995; K i n g 1990; Merchant 1981, 1984, 1992, 1996; Nelson 1990; Quinby 1990; Starhawk 1982, 1987, 1990). The early anthology Reclaim the Earth: Women speak out for Life on Earth (Caldecott & Leland 1983) is a \"politically grounded and internationally balanced\" collection that reflects an ecofeminist sensibility and gives voice to women's ecological concerns, visions, and strategies (Salleh 1991, 207). Other ecofeminist works and anthologies have been criticized for their preoccupation with philosophical rather than activist issues (Agarwal 1992; Lahar 1991; Salleh 1991). Without discounting the significance of philosophical and conceptual issues, Bina Agarwal (1992, 120-3) argues that, to effectively challenge culturally dominant constructs, we need to pay attention to the social contexts within which these constructs are produced and reproduced, and to the differing material realities that shape women's lives, their relationships to nonhuman nature, and their responses to environmental degradation. She proposes a 'feminist environmentalism' involving \"struggles over both resources and meanings\" (127). 102 On the feminist front there would be a need to challenge and transform both notions about gender and the actual division of work and resources between the genders. On the environmental front there would be a need to challenge and transform not only notions about the relationship between people and nature but also the actual methods of appropriation of nature's resources by a few. Stephanie Lahar (1991, 35) notes that, although ecofeminist theory in the past \"developed in close dialogue with political praxis,\" there has been a progressive move away from activist issues in recent years. She points to the deconstructive and reconstructive potential within ecofeminism. Ecofeminism is highly critical of most social and political institutions and thereby serves a deconstructive or dissembling function that supports political resistance. ... Ecofeminism also aspires to a creative and reconstructive function in society. To realize this potential, ecofeminism must offer \"not only an orientation and worldview but also a basis for responsible action. ... [It must] maintain an active political and participatory emphasis that is both deconstructive (reactive to current injustices) and reconstructive (proactive in creating new forms of thinking and doing)\" (36). A s she argues, in the context of \"a crisis point in social and natural history,\" we cannot afford not to have an action-oriented philosophy. She calls for the development of an action-oriented ecofeminism that must \"emerge out of a felt sense of need and personal connection with the issues at hand, not just out of an abstract process of reasoning\" (36). A s an emancipatory theory, it arises out of the particularities of our lives and is \"inseparable from the persons who think, struggle with, carry, and live it in specific times and places\" (39). It is through the development of this embodied and action-oriented theory that ecofeminism that can fulfil its potential. A s Lahar concludes, Ecofeminism does make big promises. Their fulfillment depends on theorists and activists who can embody the broad and integrated sensibilities of self and world that 103 ecofeminism helps develop and advocate and who can find the power and the energy to act on those sensibilities to make real social and political changes (43). In responding to the call for an action-based ecofeminism, I would argue that we need to draw on both ecofeminist and feminist literatures, and on the felt concerns and lived experiences of environmentally concerned and active women. While ecofeminism offers a framework for challenging patriarchal constructs that rationalize the domination of women and nonhuman nature, the feminist literature offers insight into the patriarchal structures that enable this domination to continue. Together, ecofeminist and feminist literatures have the potential to contribute to the development of a transformative feminist framework that challenges both ecological destruction and the oppression of women. But while these literatures offer powerful feminist critiques of western values and structures and can suggest the way forward, the insights and experiences of environmentally concerned and active women have much to teach us about the challenges that face us along the way. 3.4 Learning From Women's Environmental Activism In searching through the environmental literature for research into the insights and experiences of environmentally concerned and active women, I find a shortage of research on the subjective dimension of women's environmental activism. The existing literature includes quantitative surveys on gender differences in environmental concern, anecdotal evidence of the extent of women's environmental activism, personal accounts and 104 testimonies, and a relatively few in-depth studies clustered predominantly around women's toxic waste activism. These divergent sources of information suggest the following: (a) women are often more environmentally concerned than men; (b) women's environmental activism is extensive; (c) women are making significant contributions to the environmental movement, particularly at the grassroots; (d) patriarchy plays a role in marginalizing women's environmental concerns and insights and in frustrating their activism; and (e) women's environmental activism has transformative potential. With little in-depth research to draw on, however, both the critical insights and experiences of environmentally active women remain under-explored. In particular, there is a scarcity of in-depth research on women's environmental activism arising out of concern for nonhuman nature. The Extent of Women's Environmental Concerns. There is modest, but statistically significant, evidence that women tend to be more environmentally concerned than men, and that environmentally active women tend to be the most concerned of all. This evidence has emerged primarily within public opinion research (Mellor 1992, 41; Mi l le r 1991, 69 ;Nelk in 1981, 14; Rodda 1991, 103; Wright 1992) and within the survey literature in the field of environmental sociology (Baldassare & Katz 1992; Blocker & Eckberg 1989; Cornwell 1989; Fortmann & Kusel 1990; Hamilton 1985a, 1985b; Jones & Dunlap 1992; McStay & Dunlap 1983; Milbrath 1989, 53; Mohai 1992; Steger & Witt 1989; Stout-Wiegand & Trent 1983). Some surveys of'publics' and 'environmentalists' have found women environmental activists to be the most concerned of all and the strongest 105 supporters of the New Ecological Paradigm and environmental protection measures (Cornwell 1989; Fortmann & Kusel 1990; McStay & Dunlap 1983; Steger & Witt 1989). Despite evidence of women's environmental concerns, however, few researchers have attempted to explore this phenomenon in depth; fewer still have attempted to explore it from a feminist perspective (Cornwell 1989; Klundt 1991; Krauss 1993). Furthermore, \"surprisingly little\" research has been done on the extent to which women's environmental concern has been translated into action (Mohai 1992, 2). While these studies provide some evidence of the extent of women's environmental concerns, they do not provide the basis for concluding that aU women are more environmentally concerned than men, or that women are always more environmentally concerned than men. In fact, some studies have found no significant differences between men and women (Johnson & Johnson 1994; Van Liere & Dunlap 1980); others have found men to be more supportive of the environmental worldview (Arcury & Christianson, 1990) and more supportive of conservation policies (Longstreth et al 1989). In cautioning against the generalization of these studies, researchers point to the various limitations of the surveys: (a) many of the gender differences found in these studies have been small, and even the statistically significant differences have been modest (Cornwell 1989; McStay & Dunlap 1983); (b) even where significant gender differences were found, when considered along with other variables (e.g. cognitive, ideological etc), gender was not always the most important (Klundt 1991; Longstreth et al 1989; Van Liere & Dunlap 1980); and most importantly (c) these studies range widely in terms of the substantive issues addressed (eg. toxic waste, 106 resource depletion, acid rain), the particular contexts within which the studies are carried out, and the particular conceptual frameworks by which the researchers define and measure environmental concern (Baldassare & Katz 1992; Jones & Dunlap 1992; Klundt 1991; V a n Liere & Dunlap 1981). A s Karen Klundt (1991, 149) concludes, \"With such a variety of indicators of environmental concern and virtually no replication of studies, it is difficult to establish the meaning of environmental concern, to compare findings from different studies, and to establish generalizations.\" The Extent of Women's Environmental Activism. There is evidence that growing numbers of women throughout the world are responding to environmental problems and translating their concerns into action (Caldecott & Leland 1983; Dankelman & Davidson 1988; Forsey 1993; Hamilton 1990; Harcourt 1994b; Hessing 1993; M a y 1990a; Merchant 1981, 1984, 1992, 1996; Nelk in 1981; Paolisso & Yudelman 1991; Peterson & Merchant 1986; Ranney 1992; Rodda 1991; Salleh 1987; Schmid 1990; Seager 1993; Shiva 1988, 1994; Sontheimer 1991; Viezzer 1992; W E D O 1992). Taken as a whole, women's environmental activism addresses a wide-range of local and global issues that threaten the health and well-being of individuals, families, communities and ecosystems (e.g. ozone depletion, climate change, forest practices, mining, agriculture, fisheries, militarism, mega-dams, hazardous wastes, nuclear energy, ecological conservation and restoration, and animal rights). Despite the extent and diversity of women's environmental activism at both local and global levels, there has been little in-depth research 107 into this phenomenon, and limited research in the context of western industrial culture (Krauss 1993; Lerner 1993; Lerner & Jackson 1993). Much of the literature on 'gender and sustainability' or 'women and the environment' has focused on women's environmental activism in the South where women, particularly rural and indigenous women, are playing a key role in environmental management, protection, restoration and conservation (Dankelman & Davidson 1988; Harcourt 1994b; Jacobson 1992a; Paolisso & Yudelman 1991; Rodda 1991; Shiva 1988, 1994; Sontheimer 1991). While there are increasing references to women's environmental activism in the North, few in-depth studies exist. Toxic waste activism. In reviewing the literature on women's environmental activism in the North, I find that most of the anecdotes, personal testimonies, and in-depth studies focus on women's activism around issues of hazardous or toxic wastes (Chavez 1992; Cook 1992; D i Chiro 1992; Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Gibbs 1982; Gibbs & Stults 1988; Goodwin 1991; Hamilton 1990, 1991; Highlander 1992; Krauss 1993, 1995; Levine 1982; Mcintosh 1993; Merchant 1981; Neal & Phillips 1990; Nelk in 1981; Nelson 1990; Newman 1994; Peterson & Merchant 1986; Rosenberg 1990; Shute 1987). A s Carolyn Merchant (1996, 12) points out, \"The majority of activists in the grassroots movement against toxics are women.\" In her review of women's activism in this movement, she provides examples of women's individual and collective activism around issues of nuclear technology, radioactive wastes on native lands, hazardous chemical wastes, pesticides and herbicides, and appropriate technology (139-66). A s she concludes, \"The participation of 108 thousands of women around the country and around the world in such activities illustrates the depth of their concern and the power of their activism\" (151). Activism as a 'motherhood' issue. Research into women's activism around hazardous wastes has led many to frame women's environmental activism as an extension of traditional gender roles. Giovanna D i Chiro (1992, 113) points out that many women organizing against toxic wastes have been moved to action by \"deep concerns about the health and future survival of their children and communities.\" Their expressed concern for the health and well-being of children, families, and communities has prompted many to explain women's environmental activism in terms of their traditional roles as caretakers, nurturers, and mothers (Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Hamilton 1990; Krauss 1993; Neal & Phillips 1990; Peterson & Merchant 1986; Rosenberg 1990; Seager 1993; West & Blumberg 1990). A s D i Chiro (1992, 113) explains, \"The identity and experience of being a 'mother,' and the outrage at watching local corporations and government officials exhibiting total disregard for the lives of their children, have significantly motivated many women to become politically active.\" She emphasizes, however, that women's identities \"as simply 'mothers' is by no means always the central focus of their activism\" (115). In responding to the local manifestations of environmental destruction, research on women's environmental activism around toxic wastes shows that, while they may frame their activism in terms of motherhood, they bring to their activism perspectives that reflect the diverse and complex circumstances and contexts of their lives (Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Hamilton 1990; Krauss 1993, 1995; Nelson 1990). 109 The Contributions of Women's Environmental Activism. Grassroots activism and the environmental justice movement. Women are contributing significantly to the growth and development of a grassroots environmental movement (Di Chiro 1992; Durning 1989; Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Garland 1988, Goodwin 1991; Jordan & Snow 1992; Krauss 1993; Merchant 1981, 1996; Rousch 1992); and women, particularly low-income women and women of colour, make up \"the vast majority of activists in the environmental justice movement\" (Di Chiro 1992, 93). Existing research suggests that these women activists are making significant contributions to how we understand and respond to environmental problems. In examining the activism of working class, African American, and Native American women around toxic wastes, for instance, Celene Krauss (1993, 259) argues that their protests connect environmental concerns to issues of class, gender and race. In linking these issues, they contribute significantly to the emergence and growth of a grassroots environmental justice movement in the United States (Di Chiro 1992; Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Krauss 1993, 1995). D i Chiro (1992, 96) argues that this \"merging of social justice and environmental interests\" is helping to build a movement that \"assumes that people are an integral part of what should be understood as the 'environment'.\" She contrasts this perspective with the \"white, middle-class, and uncritically 'preservationist' political culture\" of the mainstream environmental movement that tends to exclude issues of environmental justice from their agenda (Di Chiro 1992, 94-5). What others point out is that the mainstream environmental movement is also dominated by men (Larsen 1991; Seager 1993; Snow 1992). 110 The gendered nature of environmentalism. While women's leadership is highly visible within grassroots environmental organizations, national and international organizations are dominated by men. The female-dominated grassroots environmental movement in general, and the environmental justice movement in particular, contrast sharply with the male-dominated mainstream environmental movement (Di Chiro 1992; Jordan & Snow 1992; Larsen 1991; Seager 1993; Snow 1992). In a study of over 500 conservation leaders in the United States, for instance, the Conservation Fund concluded, \"The leadership of the environmental movement stands as an obdurate white-male island in the middle of the work force increasingly populated by women and people of color\" (Snow 1992, xxxi i i ) . In this study, Snow (1992, 100) argues that the domination of the mainstream environmental movement by white middle-class men, the hierarchical nature of their organizations and decision-making processes, the predominantly technocratic and expert-based approach to dealing with environmental issues, and their general discomfort with issues of social justice often places the mainstream environmental movement at odds with the female-dominated grassroots environment movement \"over the most fundamental question in a democracy: Who shall choose, and how shall the choices be made?\" In contrast, research on women's grassroots environmental activism confirms a participatory and democratic ethos with a greater emphasis on democratic structures, decision-making, and group processes; a greater willingness to challenge the power and vested interests of corporate and state elites and to expose the injustices of environmental decision-making; an essentially political as opposed to technocratic approach to environmental issues; and the merging of environmental and social justice issues (Di Chiro 1992; Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Goodwin 1991; Jordan & 111 Snow 1992). In organizing around concerns for the well-being of their children, families, and communities, these women have contributed significantly to the democratization of their own organizations and public decision-making processes, to the growth of environmental organizing, and to the organization of multiconstitutional and multiracial coalitions (Di Chiro 1992; Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Hamilton 1990; Krauss 1993). They have also contributed to the creation of a new consciousness around environmental issues. In linking issues of social justice with environmental concern, women's grassroots activism around toxic wastes locates humans within the context of a larger \"environment\" to which they belong (Di Chiro 1992). In basing their activism on both experiential and scientific knowledge, they have challenged the domination of scientific experts and professionals (Di Chiro 1992; Seager 1993). And finally, women's insistence on \"fighting for what they felt was 'right' rather than what men argued might be reasonable\" has placed values and moral concerns at the centre of environmental activism (Hamilton 1990, 221). In reviewing the critical perspectives that these women bring to their activism, D i Chiro (1992, 125) concludes, The multiple struggles for material and cultural survival that these activists and their communities have been engaged in for years ... illustrate a commitment to addressing the fundamental problems underlying the \"environmental crisis.\" ... The issue is not that we need to regulate and design more advanced technologies or to determine the minimum habitat requirements of a particular organism, but that \"everyone deserves to live in a healthy and safe environment\" regardless of race, class, gender, culture, or species. ... These women's voices ... speak loudly and clearly and it's time to listen. 112 Women's Activism in the Context of Patriarchy. Despite the significant contributions that women are making to how we understand and respond to the environmental crisis, the testimonies of women reveal the patriarchal resistance they face in the course of their activism. A s feminists explain, when women become active in the 'public' sphere, they challenge patriarchal constructs and structures that act to relegate women and their concerns to the 'private' spaces of home and family (Di Chiro 1992; Seager 1993, West & Blumberg 1990). A s Joni Seager (1993, 271) points out, \"when women walk out of their homes to protest a planned clear-cutting scheme, toxic-waste dump, or highway through their community, their gender and sex identity goes with them\u00E2\u0080\u0094in a way that is not true for men.\" Whether or not women pursue their environmental activism \"self-consciously as women ... they are perceived by men not just as environmental activists, but as women activists.\" When women step into the 'public' realm to express and act on their concerns, their activism \"can and often does involve a triple struggle: against the broad tyranny of state or corporate male elites, against sexism within the movement itself, and against the patriarchal machismo of men in the family\" (West & Blumberg 1990, 30). Public patriarchy. When confronted with the concerns that women bring to their environmental activism, the typical response of state and corporate elites has been to belittle the women themselves as 'hysterical housewives,' 'irrational' or 'uniformed'; and to thereby trivialize both the women and their concerns as unimportant or irrelevant (Di Chiro 1992; Hamilton 1990; Hynes 1988; Light 1992; Luxton, Rosenberg & Arat-Koc 1990; Macintosh 113 1993; Rosenberg 1990). Ridicule is \"a common play men use to discredit women's knowledge and their concerns\" (Light 1992, 14). Anita Light (1992, 14) argues that women activists are further marginalized by androcentric assumptions that define proper behaviour and influence the organization of public processes such as environmental hearings. The 'rules of the game' favour a masculinized image of participants: detached, unemotional, rational, well-organized, well-connected, and appropriately dressed in suit and tie with briefcase in hand. Public processes are often organized around the lives of men who have \"wives to wash their clothes, cook their meals, and get their children to and from school\" (15). The timing of meetings, the lack of childcare, the intolerance of children's presence at meetings, and the refusal to acknowledge and allow for women's caretaking responsibilities all make it difficult for women with families to participate. When women do participate, they are often treated with disrespect and relegated to supportive and marginal roles. A s Light elaborates, Women activists endure the looks, the sniggers and the patronizing 'dears' and 'luvs' and 'what does your husband think about you being out so often?' They tolerate being interrupted, given less time to speak, having the topic changed, asked to take notes, being passed over when important delegations are to be formed or public speeches made. Women activists have to brave the daily sexual intimidation that is every woman's experience i f she walks alone or travels alone. But fortunately they are not always deterred (15). Women who persist in their activism often find themselves the target of intimidation and violence that is directed at them both as environmental activists and as women. Women activists are particularly vulnerable to sexual intimidation and male violence (Seager 1993; West & B l u m b e r g 1990). 114 Patriarchy in the movement. Seager (1993, 175) points out that many women find environmental organizations to be more 'women-friendly' than most workplaces. She suggests, however, that this is less so within the predominantly white, middle-class, and male-dominated eco-establishment with its \"trend toward professionalization\" (176). A s she describes it, this eco-establishment is directed by male-dominated boards and management and serviced and maintained by female-dominated administration and support staff; driven by organizational models \"mired in conventional male power structures\" and a \"men's club ethos\"; and directed by male-defined priorities and agendas (175-9). Patriarchal organizational structures and leadership styles and increasing professionalization have turned the ecoestablishment into a replica of the corporate, military, and government establishments \"that are often their environmental adversaries\" (185). Together, 'the boys' on both sides of the environmental agenda play a significant role in shaping how we understand and respond to environmental problems (5). Within both the eco-establishment and grassroots environmental organizations, women activists find themselves: relegated to the lower-paid administrative, caretaking, and housekeeping roles; the target of sexist jokes, insults and harassment; marginalized by hierarchical, competitive, and male-dominated organizations; and silenced by aggressive men, macho leadership styles, and patriarchal processes and politics (Bari 1991, 1994; Chornook 1993; Forsey 1993; Larsen 1991; Schmid 1990; Seager 1993; Tindall & Begoray 1993). When women in these organizations attempt to challenge \"patriarchal ways of conducting business,\" the typical response is to argue that \"a more urgent agenda takes precedence. Women are often told that 'their' issues wi l l be dealt with later\" (Seager 1993, 171). 115 Patriarchy in the home. Women who persist in their activism eventually feel the tensions between their private lives and the demands of public activism. The stories of women organizing around toxic wastes are testimony to the struggles women encounter as they try to juggle the traditional roles and expectations placed upon them by family members with their need to give public voice to their concerns about the health and well-being of their families and communities. Women recount stories of how their activism has turned their homes into hectic organizing centres, made it difficult for them to keep up with their housecleaning chores and their caretaking and childminding roles, and kept them away from home and unavailable to their husbands and children who accuse them of neglecting their family responsibilities (Gibbs 1982; Hamilton 1990; Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984). For many women, the intensity of their activism threatens their relationships, sometimes to the point of divorce or separation (Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Gibbs 1982). Faced with the choice between activism and meeting their traditional role expectations, however, many women find themselves unwilling to fit back into their old roles. A s Love Canal activist, Lois Gibbs, puts it, \" M y husband never changed, but I did. I felt like I couldn't go back and be a full-time homemaker.\" The Transformative Potential of Women's Activism Women's stories of continued activism in the face of patriarchy reveal both their capacity to resist patriarchal barriers and the transformative potential of their activism. Within the few in-depth studies on women's environmental activism are accounts of both 116 tremendous personal strain and patriarchal resistance and personal transformation and empowerment (Di Chiro 1992; Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Gibbs 1982; Krauss 1993; Rosenberg 1990). In examining women's environmental activism around toxic wastes, Harriet Rosenberg (1990, 125) speaks of the \"transformation from isolated housewife to activist.\" In their study of women's environmental activism around toxic wastes, Freudenberg & Zaltzberg (1984) found that women with little prior experience with political organizing spoke of how their activism helped them to overcome shyness, grow in self-confidence, and gain skills in lobbying, research, public communications, community organizing, media outreach, planning and strategies. Although their activism began as an extension of traditional female roles, \"in the process of carrying out their traditional responsibilities, these activists were in fact transformed\" (265). In many instances, women's activism has also transformed relations in the home. A s women have devoted more of their time and energy to their activism, some husbands have become more engaged in household work (eg. cooking, childcare), children and spouses have become more engaged in support work for the women, and several women have reported that their activism has earned them a new respect from their children (Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Gibbs 1982; Hamilton 1990). Cynthia Hamilton (1990, 221) documents the transformations that took place in the homes of some women activists, [Meetings] in individual homes ultimately involved children and spouses alike\u00E2\u0080\u0094 everyone worked and everyone listened. The transformation of relations continued as women spoke up at hearings and demonstrations and husbands transported children, made signs, and looked on with pride and support at public forums. 117 There is also evidence to show that the strong presence of women in environmental organizations can transform the organizational culture (Bari 1991, 1994; Chornook 1993; Freudenberg & Zaltzberg 1984; Hamilton 1990). Freudenberg & Zaltzberg (1984) found that many of the community groups struggling against toxic wastes organized themselves around principles that were very similar to those developed within the early feminist movement: nonhierarchical structures, rotating leadership, consensus decision-making, participatory democracy, integration of personal concerns with political action, and nonviolent direct action. These stories of personal empowerment, changing gender roles in the home, and increasingly nonhierarchical and democratic organizational structures suggest that women's environmental activism has the potential for both personal and structural transformation: and that women's environmental activism has the potential to challenge both ecological destruction and patriarchal relations. With few studies to draw on, however, the transformative potential of women's environmental activism remains unanswered. The Scarcity of In-Depth Research Despite evidence of the extent and significance of women's environmental concern and activism in the North, a review of literature reveals a lack of in-depth research into the subjective dimensions of women's environmental activism. A s a result, the critical insights and experiences of environmentally concerned and active women remain under-explored. 118 The quantitative nature of the survey literature on gender differences in environmental concern, the scarcity of in-depth studies, and a concentration of research on women's activism around toxic wastes suggest the need for in-depth research in a variety of contexts. From a feminist perspective, I would argue that the survey literature on gender differences in environmental concern is limited by the quantitative nature of the research. Without discounting the ability of quantitative survey techniques to \"put a problem on the map\" (Reinharz 1992, 70) or to highlight an issue for further research, feminists argue that quantitative research techniques such as survey questionnaires force respondents to \"fit\" into conceptualizations and categories that are predetermined by the researchers and leave little room for the conceptualizations and categories of respondents to emerge (Jayaratne & Stewart 1991; Klundt 1991; Reinharz 1992). When the categories and subsequent analyses are informed by androcentric assumptions, these predefined categories \"distort women's experience and result in a silencing of women's own voices\" (Jayaratne & Stewart (1991, 85). B y reducing complex issues to a limited number of questions predetermined by the researcher, surveys tend to obscure and oversimplify issues and leave little room for the complexities and subtleties of the issues to emerge (Reinharz 1992, 89-90). The lack of in-depth exploration into the subjective side of women's environmental concerns leaves us with little understanding as to how women themselves frame and respond to their environmental concerns. 119 Despite the extent and significance of women's environmental activism, particularly at the grassroots, in-depth research into this phenomenon has been limited and much of our understanding of women's environmental activism has been constructed around the experiences of women active in grassroots struggles around toxic wastes. A s a result, both the critical perspectives that women bring to their activism and feminist concerns about patriarchal barriers to sustainability remain unexplored (Krauss 1993; Lerner 1993; Lerner & Jackson 1993). In reviewing case studies, surveys and other literature on contemporary environmental stewardship groups and coalitions, for instance, Lerner and Jackson (1993, 25) note the invisibility of gender issues in the literature and suggest that \"further research would probably reveal that these exist, openly or as suppressed issues, in a number of contemporary groups.\" Feminists are increasingly calling for the recovery of women's stories of environmental activism and for an acknowledgement of the contributions that their activism is making to the well-being of communities and the earth (Forsey 1993; Hosek 1991; Krauss 1993; Mcintosh 1993). In supporting the call for the recovery of women's stories, Sue Mcintosh (1993, 90) insists that \"most importantly, we need to hear them and learn from them.\" Without discounting the significance of women's environmental concerns and activism around toxic wastes, the framing of their concerns around issues of human health raises the question of whether these women challenge anthropocentric values which place the well-being of humans above that of nonhuman nature. The lack of research on women's environmental activism from an ecofeminist perspective, and the scarcity of research on 120 women's environmental activism arising out of concern for nonhuman nature, leaves unanswered the question of the ecofeminist potential of women's environmental activism. While there is evidence that women have played a significant role in the American conservation movement (Merchant 1984; Ranney 1992), for instance, there is a scarcity of in-depth studies that explore the subjective dimensions of their activism. Evidence of women's presence as conservation activists in both the United States and Canada continues to surface primarily in the form of individual testimonies and the occasional case study (Bari 1991, 1994; Berman 1995; Chomook 1993; Highlander 1992; Langer & Bate 1993; M a y 1990a, 1990b; Sherwood 1991; Tindall & Begoray 1993; Voelker 1988a, 1988b). The need for research on women's environmental activism in this area is highlighted by the findings of Fortmann & Kusel (1990). In surveying community residents near two American national forests for differences in forest management attitudes, dissatisfaction, and action, they found little difference between the attitudes of long and short-term residents. They did, however, find that women tended to be more proenvironmental than men; and that the 'voice' o f those expressing concerns tended to be female. As they conclude: \"These data are interesting in that while the voice which the Forest Service has traditionally heard has not only been procommodity, but also male, this would suggest that a new voice that is both environmentalist and female is emerging\" (221-2). 121 2.5 Defining This Research The Research Problem The call for ethics-based planning for sustainability. In Chapter 1,1 point out that planning theory and practice has paid scarce attention to the values and assumptions shaping planning responses to environmental problems. In the context of a deepening environmental crisis, there are growing calls for a planning framework informed by environmental ethics. In Chapter 2,1 draw on the literatures of deep ecology, social ecology, bioregionalism, and ecofeminism to explore four essential features of the ecocentric discourse and briefly outline an ethics-based planning framework consistent with an ecocentric perspective. Raising feminist concerns. In Chapter 3,1 ask whether this ethics-based planning framework w i l l challenge the patriarchal nature of western culture, and mainstream planning in particular. In reflecting on the urgent call for action emerging from the sustainability discourse, and on the ecocentric call for cultural transformation, I raise feminist concerns about the marginalization of women's insights and experiences from the processes by which we come to understand and respond to the environmental crisis; and ecofeminist concerns about the reproduction of patriarchy within the emerging theories and practices of the ecocentric discourse. A feminist framework that challenges both ecological destruction and the oppression of women is called for. 122 The call for an action-oriented ecofeminist framework. Ecofeminism promises to provide the best framework for challenging ecological destruction and the oppression of women. However, ecofeminist theory has developed primarily in the ideological realm and has paid little attention to structures. In supporting the call for an action-oriented ecofeminism, I argue that we need to draw from both ecofeminist and feminist literatures, and on the felt concerns and lived experiences of environmentally concerned and active women. While ecofeminist and feminist literatures provide a theoretical challenge to culturally dominant values and structures that rationalize and reproduce the domination of women and nonhuman nature, the insights and experiences of environmentally concerned and active women have much to teach us about the challenges that face us along the way. The call for in-depth research. Despite evidence of the extent and significance of women's environmental concern and activism, there is a scarcity of research into the subjective dimension of women's environmental activism. Both the critical insights that women bring to their activism and the patriarchal barriers that they face in the course of their activism remain under-explored. Most of the research findings to date have been drawn from women's activism around toxic wastes, and there is little research on women's activism arising out of concern for nonhuman nature. In-depth research into women's environmental activism arising out of concern for nonhuman nature contributes to the development of an action-based ecofeminism and to our understanding of an ethics-based planning that challenges the domination of both women and nonhuman nature. 123 Purpose of This Research This research explores the subjective dimension of women's environmental activism arising out of concern for nonhuman nature in order to (a) discover the critical insights that they bring to their activism and the patriarchal barriers they face in the course of their activism, (b) contribute to the development of an action-based ecofeminism, and (c) contribute to the development of an ethics-based planning for sustainability. In proposing an ecofeminist planning framework, this research contributes to the development of an ethics-based planning that challenges the oppression of human and nonhuman nature, male and female, and in all our differences. It also enhances our understanding of women's environmental activism in the context of western industrial culture. 124 C H A P T E R 4 R E C O V E R I N G W O M E N ' S VOICES: M E T H O D S 4.1 Choosing a Method: Carrying Out the Research In order to learn from the insights and experiences of women whose environmental activism arises out of concerns for nonhuman nature, I adopt a feminist methodology, in-depth qualitative methods, and an exploratory case study research strategy. Feminist Methodology Feminist methodology has developed in response to what Dorothy Smith (1987, 22) calls \"the brutal history of women's silencing.\" A s she explains, with men occupying most positions of power, \"the concerns, interests, and experiences forming 'our' culture are those of men in positions of dominance whose perspectives are built on the silence of women (and of others)\" (19-20). A feminist methodology is committed to challenging this androcentric bias (Cook & Fonow 1986; Fonow & Cook 1991; Gluck & Patai 1991; Harding 1987b; Smith 1987; Reinharz 1992). Sandra Harding (1987a) articulates three distinctive features of 125 feminist research. Feminist methodology (a) generates understanding out of the lived experiences and perspectives of women but rejects the notion of a universal 'woman's experience' by acknowledging the diversity and complexity of women's lives, (b) is intended to benefit women and to challenge conditions that negatively affect their lives, and (c) locates the researcher in the research and seeks more interactive forms of research that include women as subjects and 'knowers,' not merely as objects of inquiry. In this research, I seek to make visible the insights and lived experiences of environmentally concerned and active women in order to discover the critical perspectives they bring to their activism and the patriarchal barriers they face in the course of their activism. In rejecting the notion of a universal 'woman's experience,' I attempt to uncover both shared perspectives and some of the differences and complexities in these women's lives. Furthermore, in keeping with Donna Haraway's (1991) concept of partial and situated knowledges, I avoid the temptation to claim that the results of this research represent the perspectives and experiences of al l women. Instead, I would argue that the research findings reflect the perspectives and experiences of particular women located in a particular place and historical moment; and that the views they offer do not necessarily reflect the concerns, insights, and experiences of all women living in the region. In preliminary research, I interviewed a cross-section of women living in and around Clayoquot Sound: First Nations women, women working in the forest industry, women whose partners worked in the industry, and women with no direct links to the industry (Boucher, Forthcoming). While it is important to understand the various, and sometimes conflicting, perspectives that these 126 differently-located women have to offer, this research focuses on the testimonies of a particular subset of these women-al l of European origin and with no direct links to the forest industry. The selection criteria are outlined in the 'In-Depth Interviews' section (below). On the one hand, this research helps us to explore feminist concerns in the context of, and to develop an action-oriented ecofeminism and an ethics-based planning framework out of, the meanings and lived experiences of particular environmentally concerned and active women. On the other hand, the research findings offer perspectives that, in their partiality and imperfection, can be joined with the partial perspectives of differently-situated women in coming to a fuller understanding of the issues at hand. Uncovering the differences and commonalities of the 'stories' that other women have to tell is clearly a task for future research. In locating myself in this research, I would like to make visible some of my own concerns, values, and perspectives. Firstly, as a white woman of French ancestry, I am a . member of the very western culture that I seek to challenge. As such, I recognize that I have a responsibility to proceed in a careful and self-reflexive manner. While critical of my own western culture, I resist the notion that all that is western must be rejected. Instead, I seek to come to a more complex understanding of both the destructive patterns and the transformative possibilities that lie within it. While this research draws on the experiences and perspectives of other white western women, I believe that the perspectives of aboriginal and non-western peoples also have much to contribute to this understanding. Secondly, as a woman with working class roots, whose father worked in the forest industry in Northern 127 Ontario, I reject the characterization of industry workers as 'the problem' and challenge stereotypes that pit workers and their families against environmentalists. In previous research (Boucher 1993a, 1993b) I call for a more complex understanding of forest issues; one that acknowledges the real concerns of industry workers, environmentalists, First Nations communities, and feminists; one that challenges the marginalization and exploitation of workers, the forests, First Nations peoples, and women. A s part of a larger project, the present research contributes to this more complex understanding by exploring the concerns of particular environmentally concerned women. The joining of their stories with those of marginalized others w i l l continue to deepen our understanding of the issues and help us to respond more appropriately to them. Qualitative Methods In-depth qualitative research methods allow us to explore the subjective dimension of women's environmental activism in order to discover both the meanings that women give to their concerns and activism, and their experiences as environmentally concerned and active women. Sometimes referred to as 'naturalistic inquiry,' qualitative research (a) explores the research question in the context of natural settings and everyday life, (b) values and seeks to understand the perspectives of the research participants, (c) involves interaction between the researcher and research participants, and (d) depends on peoples own words and meanings as the primary source of data (Denzin & Lincoln 1994; Lincoln & Guba 1985; Marshall & Rossman 1989; Patton 1982). The contextual and interactive nature of qualitative research 128 calls for a flexible research design which allows new questions, emerging themes, unexpected data, and new insights to reveal themselves as the research process unfolds (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Marshall & Rossman 1989). Research Strategy: An Exploratory Case Study A case study research strategy allows for the exploration of little-understood phenomena in the context of the particular (Marshall & Rossman 1989; Stake 1994; Reinharz 1992; Y i n 1989). Shulamit Reinharz (1992, 174) argues that \"case studies are essential for putting women on the map of social life.\" A s she explains, researchers employ case studies for a variety of reasons, to illustrate an idea, to explain the process of development over time, to show the limits of generalizations, to explore uncharted issues by starting with a limited case, and to pose provocative questions (167). For feminists, the case study is a useful research strategy for challenging male-dominated and androcentric theories, for making visible and theorizing out of the lived experiences of women, and for suggesting feminist action (167-9). In this instance, I use a case study to explore the relatively 'uncharted' phenomenon of women's environmental activism, and to develop an action-oriented ecofeminism and an ethics-based planning framework out of the lived experiences of environmentally concerned and active women. B y focusing on women's environmental activism in a particular context, the case study enables me to explore the particularities and complexities of the issues at hand (Reinharz 1992, 194). A s Robert Y i n (1989, 14) puts it, the case study is an appropriate research study when there is \"the desire to 129 understand complex social phenomena\" in a manner that retains \"the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events.\" In this case, I explore women's environmental activism in the context of growing concerns about the coastal temperate rainforests of Clayoquot Sound. I chose to locate my research in the context of Clayoquot Sound for several reasons: (a) Clayoquot Sound has a long history of land use conflicts involving First Nations claims to traditional forested lands, environmentalist challenges to unsustainable forest practices, and industry efforts to ensure timber supplies. A s such, it provides a rich context within which to explore the subjective dimension of women's environmental activism; (b) the Friends of Clayoquot Sound (FOCS) , a local environmental group, has played a significant role in these struggles and is located in Tofino, a predominantly non-aboriginal community in Clayoquot Sound; (c) with an economy dependent on fisheries and tourism, Tofino and the First Nations communities of the Sound depend on the long-term ecological sustainability of the region for their livelihoods; (d) over the years, Tofino has been the site of community-based and government-led processes designed to grapple with land conflicts and to develop a long-term sustainability strategy for the region; and (e) over the years many women from Tofino have played significant roles as directors and members of the Friends of Clayoquot Sound, as leaders, organizers, spokespersons, and participants in protests against unsustainable forest practices, and as participants in processes designed to search for sustainable solutions to the issues at hand. This research seeks to make visible the insights and experiences of some of these women. Without discounting the significant contributions of First Nations 130 communities in the region, and aboriginal women in particular, this research explores the subjective dimension of women's environmental activism from within the context of my own western culture. In the next chapter, I set Clayoquot Sound in the context of global and provincial forest-related concerns, and introduce the context within which these women's concerns and activism have emerged. A s a case study, this research takes place in the context of a particular place (the region of Clayoquot Sound and the town of Tofino) and a particular historical moment (one year following the 1993 summer of mass protests and arrests); the research findings reflect these particularities. Furthermore, the research findings are shaped both by the particular experiences and perspectives of the women interviewed, and by the particular perspectives, values and sensibilities that I, as the researcher, bring to the research process. The generalizability of the specific results, therefore, may be limited. A s with any case study, the task of the researcher \"is not to represent the world, but to represent the case\" (Stake 1994, 244). In seeking to adequately represent the case, this research allows for the construction of a 'story' which can be reflected on and explored for relevance in other contexts. Given the focus on the environmental activism of particular women in the context of western industrial culture, this 'story' is both situated and partial. But it is a story that can be joined by the 'stories' o f others. The use of techniques such as thick description of the research context, a theoretical framework, and triangulation increase the possibility of doing so. These techniques are described in greater detail in Section 3.2 below. 131 In-Depth Interviews Interviews are interactions between the interviewer and interviewee for the purpose of eliciting data relevant to the research at hand (Marshall & Rossman 1989, 82). They can vary from highly structured questionnaires to loosely structured 'conversations' in which the interviewee shapes the direction that the interview takes. Qualitative research generally depends on in-depth interviews which resemble these loosely structured 'conversations.' In contrast to structured interviews which ask the same predetermined questions of all interviewees, unstructured (or semi-structured) interviews are guided by a set of topics (or a set of questions about a topic) which the interviewer wishes to explore (Fontana & Frey 1994, 371; Marshall & Rossman 1989, 82; Reinharz 1992, 281). These interview guidelines \"help uncover the participant's meaning perspective, but otherwise respects how the participant frames and structures the responses\" (Marshall & Rossman 1989, 82). Rather than impose the researcher's pre-conceived ideas onto the interviewee, the in-depth interview allows themes and issues of importance to the participants to emerge. Feminist researchers argue that in-depth interviews allow for the recovery of women's own words, ideas, memories, and feelings, and that \"this way of learning from women is an antidote to centuries of ignoring women's ideas altogether or of having men speak for women\" (Reinharz 1992, 19). In this research, I use semi-structured interviews, guided by a set of questions, to explore the insights and experiences of environmentally concerned and active women in Clayoquot Sound. 132 A s an interactive form of data collection, interviews have both strengths and weaknesses (Marshall & Rossman 1989, 102-3). Besides providing the space for participants' own meanings and experiences to emerge, they facilitate immediate clarification and follow-up, the exploration of complexities and contradictions, and nonverbal communication; they enable large amounts of data to be collected quickly; and they allow data collection from a variety of sources and perspectives. A t the same time, the sheer quantity of data, while valuable, can be difficult to organize and analyse; and the subjective nature of the data makes them vulnerable to misinterpretation. Furthermore, because in-depth interviews involve personal interactions, they depend on good communication between the interviewer and interviewee and are vulnerable to all the dynamics of interpersonal communication (e.g. degree of cooperation, levels of personal comfort and trust, degree of openness and honesty, listening and communication skills, interpretive frames). Because interviewing intrudes into the lives of those being interviewed, and because a feminist methodology is critical of the objectification and exploitation of women within traditional research, many feminist researchers have concerned themselves with the nature of the interview relationship and with the methodological and ethical dilemmas they confront in trying to do research that is not exploitative or silencing of women's voices (Fontana & Frey 1994; Oakley 1981; Reinharz 1992; Ribbens 1989; Smith 1987). A n n Oakley (1981), for instance, rejects the notion of the detached and 'objective' interview process and argues for a feminist model of interviewing based on openness, engagement, non-hierarchical relations, and reciprocity. A s she argues, \"personal involvement is more than dangerous bias\u00E2\u0080\u0094it is the 133 condition under which people come to know each other and to admit others into their lives\" (58). In responding to Oakley's call for reciprocity, however, Jane Ribbens (1989) warns against the uncritical pursuit of interview relationships based on reciprocity, friendship, and collaboration while ignoring issues of power. She argues that there are often real differences in power between the researcher and the participant; and that different women have different expectations about the interview process, do not always welcome the researcher's self-disclosures, have different notions of 'friendship,' and are not necessarily interested in a relationship beyond the interview. Finally, she points to the paradox of in-depth interviews. While interviewees are given the power to control the direction that the interview takes, it is the researcher who ultimately takes this information away \"to be objectified as an interview transcript\" (1989, 587). She insists that researchers need to recognize and deal responsibly with \"the inescapable power we may hold to define another's reality.\" In this research, I attempt to deal with this power to define by providing several opportunities for women to respond to the 'stories' that I construct out of their interviews (see 'member checks' in Section 3.2 below). In calling for ethical, responsible, and respectful research relationships, Andrea Fontana and James Frey (1994, 373) argue that interviews provide the opportunity for learning about both self and other. As they explain, \"[A]s we treat the other as a human being, we can no longer remain objective, faceless interviewers, but become human beings, and must disclose ourselves, learning about ourselves as we try to learn about the other.\" About to embark on this journey of discovery and self-discovery, I wrote in my journal: It occurs to me that I w i l l learn a lot through doing this research, both intellectually and personally. I'm both excited and afraid of the process, but I have decided to trust both the process of talking to, and respecting women's experiences and trusting 134 myself. I'm open to surprises and I'm sure they'll come (Reflexive Journal, A p r i l 11, 1994). In this study, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 women who: (a) had lived in the region for at least 2 years prior to the interview (at least one year prior to the 1993 mass protests); (b) were concerned about the ecological sustainability of the region; and (c) were (or had been) involved in public actions around issues of sustainability in the region (eg. public hearings, public protests, local sustainability initiatives, local or government task forces, round tables, etc.). To begin, I developed a short list of possible research participants from the names of women familiar to me because of their high profile in the Friends of Clayoquot Sound or in public land use processes, and from the names of women suggested by activists I knew in Vancouver. Starting from this list, I began to make contact with women in Tofino. Because of the distance between Tofino and Vancouver, the first contact was usually by phone. M y intention in these phone calls was to briefly introduce myself and offer to send a letter of introduction outlining the research goals and inviting their participation. A s it turned out, almost all of the women wanted to hear more about the research on this first call. After they had 'checked me out,' they either agreed to an interview or refused. Only four asked to see the initial contact letter. There were a few refusals, however, that alerted me to underlying fears and tensions in the community. One woman was extremely sharp and angry in her refusal; another wanted to know i f I was with the press and quickly ended the conversation; another reacted strongly and negatively to the fact that I was interviewing only women but went on to share her concerns and her fear of making her 135 radical views public. A s the interviews unfolded, these refusals had more of a context and I wondered i f the tensions and burnout following the 1993 protests and mass arrests, the threats of violence directed toward activists, and the occasional reference to 'ecofeminist cliques' and poor feminist process had anything to do with these refusals. There is likely an important 'story' (or set of stories) here that this research did not capture. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Tofino (and in Chesterman Beach on the outskirts of town) over a period of three months, Apr i l to June 1994. - Because of the distance and expense of travels to Tofino, I tried to arrange several interviews during each visit and used that block of time to explore Tofino and get a feel for the place. Most of the interviews took place in women's homes over a cup of coffee or tea; a few were conducted in my room at the motel where I sometimes stayed. At the beginning of each interview, I briefly introduced my research, discussed concerns about confidentiality, reviewed the consent form with them and had them sign it. I also asked their permission to tape the interview. A n interview guide was used to guide the 'conversation.' Originally four pages long, I did not necessarily ask all the questions on it but let the conversation range freely within the context of the topics covered. After about 5 interviews, I shortened the guide to one page (see Appendix A - l ) . Towards the end of the interview, I asked women to suggest other women I should interview. I was looking for women who had different perspectives or experiences to contribute. It was through this selection process that I came to interview women who were less visible in their activism. This was important as it uncovered both a 136 hidden dimension of women's environmental activism (behind the scenes) and additional explanations for why women might choose one form of activism over another. In talking with Maryjka, I also learned that (a) all the women active at F O C S are single without children and (b) that many women who were actively involved before, became less active or inactive once they had children. This is very significant given the way that environmentalist issues have been framed as \"motherhood\" issues (Reflexive Journal, Apr i l 11,1994). There were several high profile women who were unavailable during the interview phase, and many others who were suggested but not interviewed. Nevertheless, my sense is that the number of interviews conducted was 'enough.' A s Seidman (1991, 45) suggests, There are two criteria for enough. The first is sufficiency. Are there sufficient numbers to reflect the range of participants ... so that others outside the sample might have a chance to connect to the experiences of those in it? ... The other criterion is saturation of information. ... [There comes] a point in a study at which the interviewer begins to hear the same information reported. He or she is no longer learning anything new. ... [The] practical exigencies of time, money, and other resources also play a role ... In my opinion, the criteria of sufficiency and saturation were met. The range of participants interviewed represented a broad range of ages, experiences, life circumstances, length of time in Tofino, and activist strategies. During the interviews, I was beginning to hear the same events, perspectives, and experiences reported on. Finally, the practical limitations of time, money, and my responsibilities as a single mom made it difficult to extend the interview process much further. It was time to say 'enough.' Following completion of the interview phase, all of the taped-interviews were transcribed. 137 In reflecting on this interview phase of the study, I consider it one of the richest and most enjoyable aspects of the research process. In these 'conversations' I often found myself connecting my own story with that of the women I interviewed. Thinking about the interview today ... Jan talked about struggling to live in ways consistent with what she believes and who she is, and of her struggles to be self-sustaining ... I certainly share her struggles (Reflexive Journal, Apr i l 10, 1994). Several of the women also mentioned that the interviews provided an opportunity to reflect on their lives and activism, to rethink their position on things, or to simply speak about an area of their lives that no one else was asking them about. Karen: It's been quite fun, in fact enlightening (laughs) to talk to you M e : Oh, in what way? Karen: Wel l , because probing questions like that make you evaluate and look at [things] more closely~I mean you can just carry on for eons without knowing exactly why you do [things] 4.2 Ensuring 'Trustworthiness' of the Research Lincoln and Guba (1985, 290) argue that there are four questions that help determine the 'trustworthiness' of qualitative research: (1) \"Truth value\": How can one establish confidence in the \"truth\" of the findings of a particular inquiry for the subjects (respondents) with which and the context in which the inquiry was carried out? (2) Applicability: How can one determine the extent to which the findings of a particular inquiry have applicability in other contexts or with other subjects (respondents)? 138 (3) Consistency: How can one determine whether the findings of an inquiry would be repeated i f the inquiry were replicated with the same (or similar) subjects (respondents) in the same (or similar) context? (4) Neutrality: How can one establish the degree to which the findings of an inquiry are determined by the subjects (respondents) and conditions of the inquiry and not by the biases, motivations, interests, or perspectives of the inquirer? In answering these questions, they propose four criteria for establishing the 'trustworthiness' of the research: credibility; transferability; dependability; and confirmability (294-331). (1) Credibility: In order to demonstrate 'truth value,' the researcher must show that his or her representation and interpretation of the multiple constructions of reality offered by the research subjects is adequate and credible. The task is twofold: to ensure that the research produces credible results; and to ensure that the research results seem credible to the research subjects who provided the original explanations and. meanings (member checks) (Lincoln & Guba 1985, 296). In this case, I use prolonged engagement, triangulation, and member checks to establish credibility of the research findings (301). (2) Transferability: Given the uniqueness of a particular research context, the research findings are not easily generalized to other contexts or research subjects. \"[A]t best only working hypotheses may be abstracted, the transferability of which is an empirical matter, depending on the degree of similarity between sending and receiving contexts\" (Lincoln & Guba 1985, 297). The task of the researcher is to provide enough description of the research context (thick description) to enable the researcher seeking to apply the research results 139 elsewhere to judge whether or not the research findings are transferable to a new context (316). Marshall and Rossman (1989, 146) suggest two other strategies to increase a study's transferability: the use of a theoretical framework to guide data collection and analysis, and triangulation. In this research, I use thick description of the research context, an ecofeminist framework, and triangulation to increase the transferability of the research findings. (3) Dependability: Given the complex and dynamic nature of reality, the research subjects and context are constantly changing, and the research process itself can induce change. Because of these \"changes in the entity being studied,\" it is difficult to replicate the exact same research study (Lincoln & Guba 1985, 299). The task of the researcher is to demonstrate the dependability (rather than the replicability) of the research by ensuring that there is an adequate research trail which documents the research process and accounts for changes in the research context and design. Techniques used to establish a study's credibility also demonstrate its dependability (316-7). Marshall & Rossman (1989, 148) suggest that thorough note-taking, a researcher's diary, and \"keeping all collected data in a wel l -organized, retrievable form\" make the research process and product available for inspection and evaluation by other researchers. In this research, the techniques used to establish research credibility (see above), are supplemented by a researcher's diary (journal of research decisions) and well-organized data to establish the dependability of the research. (4) Confirmability: In acknowledging the subjectivity that each researcher brings to the research project, qualitative research shifts the emphasis from the investigator to the data. 140 \"The issue is no longer the investigator's characteristics but the characteristics of the data: Are they or are they not confirmable?\" (Lincoln & Guba 1985, 300). The task of the researcher is to demonstrate that the research product (findings, analysis, recommendations) is supported by the data. In this research I use triangulation and a reflexive journal (personal reflections of the researcher) to increase the confirmability of the research (319). Prolonged Engagement Prolonged engagement helps the researcher to get a feel for the context, to test for misinformation, and to build trust. During the three month period during which interviews were conducted, Apr i l to June 1994,1 spent large blocks of time in Tofino. I stayed on the outskirts of town, near Chesterman Beach, setting up house in one of the most inexpensive motels in town, tenting on the ocean at a local campground, or camping in the backyard of one woman's cabin. I walked everywhere, experiencing the beauty and power of the local beaches, the layout of the town and the views of Meares Island and Clayoquot Sound, the challenge of torrential rains, and the near-impossibility of trying to find women's homes (or my own way home) in the darkness of the outskirts. I spent a lot of time observing the place and the people, making casual conversation, reading local materials related to this research, and observing women's activism. \"Justice for Bears\" reads the sign on the side of the jeep. On its roof is the skinned carcass of a bear shot yesterday, stripped of its skin and its flesh left to rot. They're on their way to Victoria to protest this illegal act. ... It struck me that their activism is not about trees but about forests, about protecting and resisting the destruction of 141 whole ecosystems ... it is as much about the animals and creatures that live there as about the trees (Reflexive Journal, May 16, 1994). I spent many hours in the local bakery/coffee shop (a hub of activity for locals and tourists alike); visited local shops (organic food store, food co-op, art shops, whale-watching offices, restaurants) and walked along the streets, the waterfront, and the road leading in and out of town; and searched for information at the local library, the district office, and a local environmental education centre. I spent time at the Friends of Clayoquot Sound office, browsing through their records, searching for materials mentioned by women in the interviews, talking with people, and occasionally helping out. A n d I visited the homes of all but four of the women I interviewed. For the most part, I felt very welcomed by the women I met and interviewed: some offered to engage in further discussion outside the interviews; some invited me along to special events or outings; others opened their homes to me; and all showed an openness to share their lives and activism with me. Sometimes I brought my teenage daughter with me, sharing the experiences of the place and introducing her to some of the women I was getting to know. In October 1995,1 spent another block of time in Tofino when I returned for a group workshop. During that visit I was able to obtain some missing information, check out doubts or questions I had, update myself on what was happening in the community and in some women's lives, and to check out my preliminary research findings. In between these times, I maintained contact primarily through phone calls (for updates, clarification, discussion), and through conversations at conferences and workshops. 142 Triangulation Triangulation makes use of multiple sources of data \"to corroborate, elaborate, or illuminate the research in question\" (Marshall & Rossman 1989, 146). A t times, triangulation involved using the data supplied by multiple research subjects. For example, several of the women spoke of the disrespect shown towards Tofino women participating in government land use processes. The felt experiences of women who participated in those processes were corroborated by the observations of other women who were sitting on the sidelines at these meetings. Together, these multiple sources of data helped to strengthen the research findings about the treatment of environmentally concerned women in these public processes. A t other times, triangulation involved the use of women's testimonies along with other sources of information about the issue at hand. For example, by using the data supplied by several of the women who were involved in the process, and background documents produced by the process itself, I was able to reconstruct the events surrounding the 1988-89 community-based sustainable development process which was eventually replaced by the government-defined Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force. Some of the multiple sources of information I drew from during this research included: Friends of Clayoquot Sound newsletters and collected materials; articles from the community newsletter the Sound: reports, articles, surveys, video-tapes, and other available documents related to the community-based Steering Committee for Sustainable Development, and to the government-led Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force and Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Strategy Steering Committee; relevant documents produced by the Government 143 of British Columbia (eg. the 1993 land use decision); relevant books, articles, and conference proceedings. These multiple sources of data were useful in helping me adequately represent the research findings; they also deepened my understanding of the region and the issues. In determining whether or not triangulation was called for, I distinguished between women's own meanings, interpretations, and felt experiences (accepted as their own representations) and generalized claims or statements of fact (which could be confirmed by reference to other sources). Member Checks Member checks enable the researcher to test the research findings with the original research subjects who supplied the data. In this research, I asked women to review their interview transcripts, invited them to attend a workshop to review my preliminary research findings, and invited comments on the next-to-final draft of the research findings. In January 1995, after all of the taped interviews had been transcribed, each woman was sent a copy of her own transcript and was asked to write or call me (collect) with any questions, comments, or sections they didn't want quoted. Five of the women got back to me with updates on their lives and activism, clarifications, corrections (spelling, facts, interpretation), and sections they didn't want quoted. Once these responses were received, I proceeded to set a date for the workshop to review the preliminary research findings. Knowing the difficulties of holding a workshop during the busy tourist season (Apri l to September) it was not surprising to find that many of the women favoured waiting until the Fal l of 1995. Eleven women responded 144 favourably to my suggestion of a Saturday October 14, 1995 workshop date and a notice was sent to all women inviting them to attend. The purpose of the workshop was to get women's feedback on the main themes around which I planned to present women's stories and on my analysis of the interview transcripts; to provide the opportunity for women to share their insights and experiences with me and each other; and to discuss possible outcomes from this research. A major disappointment for me was that only five of the eleven women ended up coming to the workshop and one had to leave early. The Friends of Clayoquot Sound had scheduled a strategy meeting for that day and many of the women were at that meeting. I learned of this the evening before I was to travel up to Tofino but decided to proceed with the workshop. The women who were coming represented a wide range of perspectives and experiences and their input would be valuable; and having experienced some of the culture of the community I knew that it would always be difficult to find a time when all could/would attend. A s one woman put it during her interview, \"organizing a workshop is a nightmare because nobody w i l l decide whether they're gonna come until about 10 minutes after it's started.\" With that in mind, I proceeded with the workshop and presented my preliminary analysis using flip chart diagrams and supporting quotes from the interviews, making sure that I included some quotes from the women who were present. These particular women felt that what I presented to them made sense; and they were astounded at the profoundness of the quotes. What also came out was that they had been bothered by the 'urns' and 'ahs' in the unedited transcripts they had received. In future research, I would edit these out so that women could more fully 145 appreciate the wisdom of their own words. Here is one excerpt from the workshop which demonstrates the above points: Fiona: I couldn't pick out one of those things I said, but I could have said any one of them. Maybe everybody else feels the same way too! (laughs) Lorna: I'm just... I'm amazed at the eloquence! Gosh! M e : I know ... well I was amazed. I think the transcripts are rich! Lorna: I mean those are pretty eloquent statements! M e : A n d they come from these interviews Merry: You're sure you didn't edit it? Because I went back over the ... Lorna: Y o u took out the 'urns' though ... M e : I took the 'urns' out Fiona: Oh man, that drove me nuts! (laughter) 'um'... 'urn' (lots of excited and expressive talk about the 'urns' in the transcripts) Merry: That's life ... there's a lot of'urns' in life (laughter) The workshop lasted for four hours, was positively received, and provided some very useful feedback. After presenting all of the findings, the women affirmed that it all made sense to them. Here's a sample of what they had to say: Merry: Wel l this is the thing that has staggered me this afternoon is how you managed to sort, organize and figure out (laughs) what was relevant to each of your topics! M e : But did it make sense to you the way I organized it? Merry: Oh absolutely!! Fiona: Can't see any other way you could do it! 146 This workshop was tape-recorded, transcribed and coded and along with the individual interviews helped to inform my final write-up. A s a group 'conversation' it both validated and deepened my analysis, but this validation was limited by the small number of women in attendance. The women also challenged some of my thinking or choice of words and helped to refine my analysis. For example, it was at this workshop that women challenged the use of the word 'patriarchy' to describe all the relations of domination. A s you w i l l see in the presentation of the case study, they were much more comfortable with the term 'dominator system' to describe a system in which women too can be dominating. A s another example, I had chosen the terms 'right livelihood,' 'right process,' and 'right relationships' to represent three emerging themes: one woman in particular challenged the use of the word 'right' arguing that it implies that there is only one 'right' way and everything else is 'wrong.' What I also discovered was that, although this workshop had been conceived of as a way to strengthen my own research findings, it provided an opportunity for these women to sit down together and talk over issues they wouldn't normally make the time for. What was interesting was that they learned more about each other, discovered some commonalities they didn't know they had, gained new information that challenged previous assumptions about events that had transpired in the community, and ended up talking about possible actions they might do together in the future. The final member check took place after I had completed a next-to-final draft of the research findings and my reflections on them. In May of 1997,1 sent each woman a copy of Parts II and III of this dissertation and invited their comments (see Participant Review Form, 147 Appendix A-2) . In particular, I invited women to (a) let me know whether they felt comfortable with the quotes and stories attributed to them, (b) tell me what name they wanted me to attach to their quotes and stories, and (c) provide general feedback on the research findings as I had presented and interpreted them. Once again, the overall response was overwhelmingly positive. With the help of some follow-up phone calls, I managed to get responses from all 20 women. Some had read the complete draft, others had only had time to read and respond to their own quotes. Eleven took the time to provide general comments on the research findings. With minor changes, all of the women felt comfortable with the release of their quotes and stories. A l l but three chose to have their real names used: these three chose their own pseudonyms. Several of the women who chose to use their own name spoke of the importance of accepting responsibility for their statements: for some, this was one more way in which they could take a stand for what they believe: for some, it was also a struggle against their own invisibility. A s one woman put it, \"Using my name scares me, but I have to take a stand!\" In providing feedback on their own quotes and stories, some women asked for quotes to be reworded so that their opinions would be more accurately expressed, some pointed out inconsistencies and errors of fact or grammar, others asked that I replace slang with proper English (eg. change 'gonna' to 'going to') and others requested changes to quotes that, as one woman put it, \"make me sound a bit stupid.\" One woman wondered whether I had taken her quotes out of context. A s she explains, 148 \"It's not that I was misquoted, there is a vague memory, but I think at times [my quotes] were taken out of context to reinforce your points. Although there were no blatant errors, I feel that meaning is sometimes lost or diminished when not kept in totality. However, I admire your effort, your hard work, and the end result.\" In the section 'Writing Up the Story' (below) I explore my struggles to keep women's quotes in context. Another woman had trouble with the feminist context within which I placed some women's quotes. Admitting that she was \"not as much a feminist\" as I am, she wondered whether these truly reflected their views or my own feminist interpretations. What is true is that this is a feminist research project informed by feminist and ecofeminist theories. What is also true is that many of the women brought their own feminist analysis to our 'conversations.' In writing up the research findings, I tried to separate my own feminist voice from the meanings that the women themselves gave to their experience and observations. In 'Writing Up the Research' (below), I describe the strategy that I finally adopted in an effort to honour women's own voices while creating a space for my own voice and that of other feminist and ecofeminist theorists. Women's feedback on the overall research findings was generally positive. Following are some of the comments I received. \"I feel validated, heard, understood and appreciated! This was a fantastic 'read' and I hope many people wi l l read it. I am very deeply touched and motivated!!\" \"I felt that you gave voice to many issues rarely discussed or addressed outside the closely-knit community itself. I would love this manuscript to become a book so that others less familiar with our experiences in the area can gain some greater understanding of the obstacles, challenges and joys of fighting for the earth. ... Thank you for including me.\" 149 \"I can see that you have toiled very hard to create this work. I enjoyed reading it. It made me feel stronger and gave me a sense of pride in my womanhood and my part in Clayoquot Sound.\" \"Thank you for creating and pulling together the very powerful voice of women involved in a struggle to protect such a sacred place. ... very thought provoking and very much needed.\" Some women felt that I had focused too much on the personal and emotional and not enough on the political. \"The personal... and emotions seemed to outweigh concerns about the environment... Perhaps this general feeling is manifested by a younger group. It seems the older age group to which I belong is more concerned about the devastating effects of global warming, pollution, clearcutting and all forms of devastation for man and wi ld creatures. Perhaps we are all on the same wave length.\" Through the interviews, all of these women expressed their strong personal feelings about the destruction taking place in their community and region: they also spoke of the political and economic injustice of this destruction. In writing up the research, I tried to capture both the personal and the political, both the emotional and the intellectual 'knowing' that these women brought to our discussions. One woman argued that the need for fundamental change calls for \"expanded alliances with trade unions, poverty groups etc., the need to find common cause.\" She cautioned that our proposed solutions not let 'the real culprits' off the hook. \"The fact that some women (including me) find it possible and enjoyable to 'live lightly' must not be turned into advocacy for poverty. This lets the multinationals off the hook. We must always keep sight of the fact that it is ... the multi-nationals' quest for maximum profit that destroys the environment, maintains 'power-over' structures, keeps the masses, including the 3rd world, in poverty.\" Some women commented on the language I used. A s one woman queried, \"Is jargon a requirement of thesis writing?\" Another took the opportunity to share what she had learned 150 about the use of the term 'macho,' which I and several other women had used in referring to destructive masculinist behaviours. \"It has recently been brought to my attention that 'macho' is a Spanish word originally meaning something close to honourable-perhaps in a patriarchal context, but it has been suggested that the way popular culture uses it is a cultural misappropriation with racist undertones.\" To acknowledge her feedback, I included a footnote on the use of this term in Chapter 9, and replaced 'macho' with descriptors such as 'masculinist' and 'aggressive' where possible. In reviewing the research findings, she and several other women pointed to the need to deal with issues of racism, particularly in relation to First Nations peoples. \"It occurred to me while reading your research report that we neglected to deal with the issue of racism. This seems unthinkable now. I think many of us have come to realize just how much racism, along with sexism and disregard for the earth, is at the root of our problems. It is absolutely essential that all voices are heard and that we learn to work together respectfully and openly, oh\u00E2\u0080\u0094and joyfully!\" Noting the marginalization of First Nations women from decision-making processes in the region, another commented, \"First Nations women are not included in the [current decision-making] processes. If you were to ever write again about the land-use issue, I could share the names of some very powerful First Nations women who have a lot to say regarding this.\" This is clearly a topic for future research. In the end, I realized that, while member checks help to establish the credibility of the research findings, they are also a way of giving back to, and learning from, those who have given of their time and energy in the research process. This was highlighted for me by the comments of one of the women who had been unable to attend the Fal l 1995 workshop. 151 When we met at a conference on feminist research held in Victoria B C in January 1996, she commented: \"We've had five or six people doing PhD research on us and you're the only one who's ever given us anything back!\" When I spoke with her again in July 1997, she mentioned that some of the women were wanting to get together to review the research findings to see whether there was any relevance for their own activism. Given the time restrictions of my own dissertation, I was not able to incorporate this process into the research. I would, however, argue for doing so in future research. From an ecofeminist perspective, it is important to know whether, and how, our research is useful to those women concerned about and actively challenging ecological destruction. The feedback of these women can contribute to the development of an action-oriented ecofeminist research agenda in which theory and practice inform one another. Thick Description Thick description of the research context assists other researchers to determine whether the research findings are transferable to another context. In this research, I felt that it was important to locate Clayoquot Sound in the context of global concerns, and in the provincial context where we see these global concerns expressed in particular ways. These global and provincial contexts increase the reader's (and the researcher's) understanding of the local concerns expressed by these women. We are encouraged to see Clayoquot Sound as the local manifestation of these broader contexts. It links the particularities of Clayoquot Sound to broader contexts and in doing so, enhances the transferability of the research 152 findings. B y drawing on other authors and research, this thick description of the context also adds credibility to the research findings in that it helps to validate the concerns and experiences that these women express. Within these contexts, a thick description of Clayoquot Sound, and of the community of Tofino in particular, give us a rich sense of the context which, to varying degrees, has shaped the concerns, visions, and experiences that these women shared during their interviews. An Ecofeminist Framework The ecofeminist framework outlined in Chapter 3 was a loose guide to the collection, organization and analysis of the data. In my interviews with women, I often found myself noting the similarities or resonance between what women were saying and the debates and theories within the ecofeminist literature. I also found myself noting the similarities between their experiences and feminist analyses of patriarchal structures. The themes identified in Part II of this research emerged out of women's own felt concerns, visions, and experiences. But ecofeminist and feminist critiques helped to organize and reflect on the rich data that these women provided. So organized, the insights and experiences of these women provided the basis for developing an action-oriented ecofeminism and an ethics-based planning framework. 153 Documenting and Organizing the Data Documentation and organization of the research data helps to create an adequate research trail, thereby increasing both the dependability and the confirmability of the research findings. In this case, I combined the organization of data with two journals\u00E2\u0080\u0094a research diary and a reflexive journal. The research data included: personal notes (on emerging themes, possible frameworks, implications, etc), interview documents (interview guide, confidentiality agreements, letters to participants), tapes of interviews, transcripts of interviews and group workshop (both disc and hard copies), coded transcript segments (both disc and hard copies), and background documents. During the course of the research, I kept two notebooks. In one (the research diary) I recorded key research decisions, contact names and numbers. In the other (the reflexive journal) I recorded my personal thoughts and feelings, as well as my observations about the research, the region/community, the participants, and what I saw as emerging themes or new questions. These journals were helpful both during the interviews and during analysis of the data. 4.3 Analysing and Presenting the Research Findings Analysing the Data The interviews formed the nucleus of this study and transcripts of the interviews and the workshop provided the primary source of data. Even before the interview phase was 154 completed, I found myself engaging in preliminary analysis, identifying emerging themes, linking women's stories to theory, asking questions, questioning previous assumptions. A s I was listening to Julie, I was thinking that there seem to be three themes emerging: (1) violence, and the connection between the violence in the woods and violence against women; (2) spirituality as a source of motivation and strength; (3) livelihoods that are drastically reduced in material consumption (Reflexive Journal, A p r i l 30, 1994). A s these interviews progress, I am having to step outside my original assumptions. I had expected women to face much more opposition as women, and to hear that they weren't able to act as fully as they would have liked to. Instead, what I'm hearing are the stories of women who are challenging, in many ways, the traditional roles of women and, despite difficulties, don't seem to let these stop them. So far, however, I have talked to only single women ... It w i l l be interesting to hear what other women with children have to say (Reflexive Journal, May 2, 1994). Once the interviews were transcribed, I listened again to the tapes, re-read the transcripts and my notes. I paid attention to nuances, emotions, tensions, and recurring themes within and between transcripts. I focused initially on individual interviews and gradually began to identify key themes that tied the interviews together into a 'story.' A preliminary analysis of the tapes and transcripts resulted in a set of emerging and connected themes that seemed to provide a reasonable representation of the 'essence' of what women were saying. It's been days of listening to tapes now. The words begin to blur ... I've started setting up file cards with headings, and now I find I'm grouping them. What I see are that these card headings are sub-headings that can be organized around some main themes. Four main themes have emerged so far: (1) activism as a way of'being'; (2) self-in-relation, and the struggles to challenge and transform relations; (3) the importance of process; (4) a story of betrayal, from community based to government defined processes (Research Diary, October 6, 1995). I developed schematic representations of these, and other themes, as a way to talk about them, and brought these to the workshop in October 1995 to get women's feedback. A s mentioned above, these preliminary findings were positively received. 155 Returning from the workshop, my first inclination was to write up the research findings using the preliminary findings and the transcripts of the workshop. Given the small number of woman at the workshop, however, I was uncomfortable with proceeding with that plan. Instead, I decided to use the preliminary themes as a rough guide to the coding of the interview transcripts. Using the computer software T E X T B A S E A L P H A I coded the transcripts of the interviews and the workshop. I now had two groups of primary data to work from: the transcripts and the coded segments from these transcripts. A s I reviewed the segments coded under any particular theme, some of the complexities emerged: I began to see some of the areas of agreement, disagreement, tension, contradiction: it became easier for me to piece together pieces of mini-stories embedded in the main 'story': the major themes around which I would organize the main 'story' began to crystallize. I was ready to write. Writing Up the 'Story' A s I began writing up the 'story' of the research findings, I found myself facing, and struggling not to be overwhelmed by, the complexity of the data. A s I wrote, I was not prepared for the complexity revealed by women as they talked about their concerns, their activism, and the solutions they saw (Reflexive Journal, March 14, 1996). Part of me wanted to simplify the data; the other part of me was determined to retain the complexity because 'that's the way the world is.' Having an ecofeminist framework to refer to helped to give some focus to the story I was about to tell. In writing up the 'story' I came to appreciate how easy it is to quote out of context when working with coded segments. In 156 an effort to reduce this risk, I found myself working back and forth between the interview transcripts and the coded segments, often re-working my presentation in light of the context from which the segment had been extracted. This proved to be a time-consuming process. I wrote up this 'story' in two phases. The first time around, I produced a descriptive text in which I attempted to describe these women's concerns, visions, and experiences using their own words as much as possible. What I learned, however, is that this was not a research text. The feedback from my doctoral committee was that there was no analysis in this 'story' and my own voice was missing. Writing a research text required that I put my voice in the text. A s Clandinin & Connelly (1994, 422-3) put it, Sometimes our field texts are so compelling that as researchers we want to stop and let them speak for themselves. ... But researchers cannot stop there, because the task is to discover and construct meaning in those texts. While pointing out \"that all field texts are constructed representations of experience\" (422), they argue that the research text makes the voice of the researcher visible. Struggling to keep women's voices in the text and to make mine visible, I found myself experiencing what they call \"one of the most difficult transitions budding researchers need to make\" (423). A s they write, This struggle for research voice is captured by the analogy of l iving on a knife edge as one struggles to express one's own voice in the midst of an inquiry designed to capture the participants' experience and represent their voices, all the while attempting to create a research text that w i l l speak to, and reflect upon, the audiences voices. The strategy I finally adopted in the write-up of this study was to present, under each of the main four themes, sub-themes consisting of a shortened and tightened version of the 157 descriptive text (women's voices) followed by a short analysis of each section (my voice). In the final chapter of this research, Chapter 10, my voice dominates as I discuss the implications of the research findings. I have come to understand research as a 'conversation' and the presentation of the research as storytelling and part of the larger 'conversation'... the challenge is to keep telling these stories to each other .. to open our minds and our hearts to each other's stories ... to engage collectively in the conversations by which we w i l l come to understand what it means to be fully human ... as responsible members of a larger earth community (Reflexive Journal, nd). 158 P A R T II T H E C A S E STUDY: E X P L O R I N G T H E S U B J E C T I V E DIMENSION O F W O M E N ' S E N V I R O N M E N T A L A C T I V I S M IN CLAYOQUOT SOUND 159 C H A P T E R 5 A N INTRODUCTION T O C L A Y O Q U O T SOUND Overview In this chapter I introduce both the women with whom I had in-depth conversations, and the contexts within which their environmental concerns and activism have emerged. Firstly, I briefly introduce global and provincial forest-related concerns that inform our understanding of the local context and these women's responses. Secondly, I introduce the land and the people of Clayoquot Sound, with particular emphasis on the community of Tofino where all of these women lived at the time of the interviews. Thirdly, I briefly outline the events that have unfolded over the years as conflicts over land use decisions and forest practices in Clayoquot Sound have escalated. These are events that, to varying degrees, these women have engaged in and helped to shape. Finally, I introduce you to the women I interviewed over the three-month period, Apr i l to June 1994. 160 5.1 Setting the Global Context A 'Planetary Wave of Deforestation' Over the last 10,000 years, the earth's forest cover has been significantly reduced and degraded (Durning 1994; Postel & Heise 1988). Forests that originally covered 34 percent of the earth's surface now comprise only 26 percent of the land; of the remaining forests, \"just one third of the initial total\u00E2\u0080\u009412 percent of the land\u00E2\u0080\u0094retains a mantle of intact forest ecosystems. The rest consists of biologically impoverished stands of commercial timber and fragmented regrowth\" (Durning 1994, 23). In tracing this \"planetary wave of deforestation\" A l a n Durning (1994, 22) points out that most of this forest loss has taken place since 1950 when the rate of deforestation accelerated \"explosively.\" In the face of vanishing forests, increasing concerns about climate change and loss of biodiversity, and a growing awareness of the vital roles that forests play in maintaining human and nonhuman life on this planet, concerns about the deforestation of the earth's surface have mounted (CSSP 1995a; Postel & Heise 1988; Ryan 1992). With much of the world's temperate forests destroyed or converted to managed stands, most of this concern has focused on the tropical forests (CSSP 1995a, 10). In 1992, however, the world's attention was drawn to both the existence and status of coastal temperate rain forests. In a 1992 study by Ecotrust/Conservation International (Kellogg 1992), the coastal temperate rain forests were proposed as a new subdivision of the temperate 161 rain forests, and identified as relatively rare, ecologically significant, and threatened. Characterized by \"proximity to oceans, the presence of mountains, and, as a result of the interaction of the two, high rainfall,\" these forests make up \"some of the most complex and most dynamic systems on Earth\" and contain \"the highest standing biomass of any ecosystem on Earth\" (Kellogg 1992, 3, 7-8). Found predominantly on the western coasts of continents, and originally covering 30-40 mill ion hectares worldwide, they have dwindled to less than half this size as a result of logging and other non-forest uses. As the study reports, \"40-50% of the world's remaining coastal temperate rain forests are found in North America,\" most significantly in British Columbia and Alaska (25). With few of these forests protected, the study identifies \"the global demand for wood products [as] the most significant factor currently affecting their status\" (34). 'Logging the Globe' A s concerns about the state of the world's forests have mounted, attention has increasingly turned to the practices of industrial forestry (Hammond 1991; Marchak 1995; Maser 1990; Swift 1983). In her review of deforestation in both northern and southern hemispheres, Patricia Marchak (1995) acknowledges the impact that activities such as agriculture, mining, and the search for firewood have had on the forests of the world. But as she points out in her book appropriately titled Logging the Globe, \"industrial forestry ... is responsible for much of the deforestation occurring in the second half of the twentieth century\" (Marchak 1995, 325). Originating in the northern countries, but spreading to the 162 south, the forest industry has become what she calls \"a full-scale industrial operation\" (5) taking place in both natural forests and increasingly in the artificial ones of tree plantations. Controlled by large transnational corporations, and aided by technologies that have enabled the mass harvesting and processing of wood fibre with fewer and fewer workers, the global forest industry is oriented towards meeting the demand for wood products in global markets. A s she and others point out, the ecological, economic, and social impacts of the industry have been devastating (Durning 1994; Hammond 1991; Marchak 1995). In the name of efficiency, competitiveness, and profitability, the industry continues to expand across the globe in search of cheap sources of fibre and labour, leaving behind ecological destruction, unemployed workers, displaced peoples, and threatened communities. Enclosing the Forests\u00E2\u0080\u0094Vanishing Homelands A s industrial forestry has spread across the globe, who has rights to forested lands has become a question of increasing concern. Critics of the global forest industry point out that, wherever forests have been identified as sources of economically valuable timber, they have been transferred into the hands of governments, corporations, and large landowners (Durning 1994; Marchak 1995). In the process, land-based cultures living within these forests have been dispossessed of their own homelands, and the ecological base of their subsistence economies destroyed or seriously eroded. Pointing to the enclosures of Europe as \"classic examples\" of the transformation of commonly held lands into private property, Patricia Marchak (1995, 11) reminds us that this process is still going on today in tropical forests 163 where \"ancient lands managed by [indigenous peoples] as common property are suddenly declared to be state or private land.\" Commenting on the speed of this conversion, Alan Durning (1994, 24) points out, \"In the space of just 150 years, 80 percent of the world's tropical forests passed from the hands of local communities ... to the hands of [colonial] authorities.\" He reminds us, however, that the appropriation of, encroachment onto, and ecological destruction of traditional forested homelands is an issue of serious concern in both the North and South (Durning 1993, 1994). A s he concludes, with so many indigenous peoples l iving in forested homelands, industrial forestry has become \"a menace\" (1993, 86). The 'Muscling Out' of Women A s the forest commons have been enclosed, the loss of access to traditional lands has had a particularly devastating effect on rural and indigenous women. Describing the gendered nature of enclosures in the South, Jodi Jacobson (1992b, 26) comments, \"throughout Africa, Asia , and Latin America, women are being muscled out of forests ... by governments and private interests looking to make a quick buck ...\" The international literature on women and forests reveals both the vital links between healthy forests and the well-being of rural women in the South, and the negative impacts that the introduction of industrial forestry has had on these women's lives (Agarwal 1992; Dankelman & Davidson 1988; F A O 1991; Jacobson 1992a; Shiva 1988). Within rural communities and land-based cultures, women have played a predominant role in the multiple use and sustainable management of these forests, depending on secure and adequate access to healthy forests for 164 food, firewood, medicines, fodder, and other items that ensure the survival of their families and communities. Despite these vital roles, both women and their knowledge of forests have been virtually ignored by the forest industry and by those attempting to stem the wave of deforestation (Dankelman & Davidson 1988; Jacobson 1992b). While many of the men in rural areas have been pulled into the forest industry, development projects, and conservation efforts, women's livelihoods have been marginalized and ignored, and traditional access to both the forests and decision-making has decreased dramatically. Severely constrained in their efforts to carry out activities that have sustained the well-being of their families and the forests for generations, it is little wonder that these women are playing significant roles in both defending and restoring forest ecosystems (Agarwal 1992; Shiva 1988; Warren 1988). 5.2 Setting the Provincial Context Threatened Forests Canadian forests cover about half the national land base, \"represent roughly 10% of the world's forest cover and 14% of its conifer volume,\" and contribute significantly to global air quality and biodiversity (CSSP 1995a, 3, 5). A significant portion of these forests are found in British Columbia. Covering about 56% of the province (Hammond 1991, 52), the forests of British Columbia represent \"23% of Canada's productive forest land and about 50% of the country's conifer volume. [They] contain some of the longest-lived and tallest-growing tree species in the world ... [and are] home to about 70% of bird species and 74% of 165 land-dwelling mammal species that breed in Canada\" (CSSP 1995a, 5). A province of many biogeoclimatic zones, British Columbia \"has one of the most ecologically-diverse landscapes in the world\" ( F R C 1991, 88) and \"is the most biologically diverse of Canada's provinces\" (CSSP 1995a, 5). The coastal temperate rainforests spanning the entire provincial coastline represent a significant part of this biodiversity and ecological productivity. It is estimated that between 19% and 25% of the world's remaining coastal temperate rainforests are found in Brit ish Columbia (Kellogg 1992, 11). Despite the extent and ecological significance of these forests, few are protected from the activities of the global forest industry. Attracted by vast forested lands and commercially valuable tree species, the forest industry has played a significant role in shaping the economy of British Columbia ( F R C 1991; Marchak 1983, 1995; CSSP 1995a). From the mid-19th century onwards, British Columbian forests have been exploited for their valuable timber. A s the need to control this exploitation became evident, legislation was introduced to both control the cutting and to ensure an adequate supply of timber to the forest industry. From the 1912 British Columbia Forest Act to the present day, \"forest management in British Columbia has been dominated ... by the single objective of maximizing timber yield. Recognition of other forest values has been incorporated as constraints on this objective\" (CSSP 1995a, 5-6). A s the cutting and management of the forests for timber has progressed, there have been growing concerns about escalating and excessive rates of cut, clearcutting, inadequate regeneration, pesticide use, excessive and inappropriate roading, and the marginalization of non-timber uses and values (CSSP 1995a; Hammond 1991; Marchak 166 1995). In light of these concerns, and with more than 95% of forested areas in the province available for timber extraction and other development (Hammond 1991, 55), the conclusion of many is that these forests are threatened by the practices of the forest industry and by the timber orientation of government legislation. Within the coastal temperate rain forests of British Columbia, for example, a 1991 evaluation of 354 watersheds over 5,000 hectares in size revealed that \"logging has been widespread, and the number of large watersheds untouched by logging is very low and diminishing rapidly\" (Kellogg 1992, 32). With only 9 of these watersheds protected, and given the current rate of cut in the unprotected watersheds, the fear is that these old growth forests \"may be gone in as little as 15 years\" (33). 'Public' Forests, Corporate Control Although 95% of the forests of British Columbia are public lands held by the provincial government, both access to and decisions about these forests have been dominated by the forest industry (Hammond 1991; Marchak 1995; Nixon 1993). Over the years, effective control over commercially valuable 'productive' forests within these lands has been transferred to forest companies in the form of forest licences \"which allow their owners to harvest what is known as 'annual allowable cuts'\" (Marchak 1995, 87). In their review of tenure and harvesting rights, the Forest Resources Commission (1991, 35) observed, \"Virtually all of the forested land is now covered by either an area-based Tree Farm Licence or one of a number of volume-based licences within a Timber Supply Area.\" With both these licences and legislation governing the industry favouring \"large, integrated companies [over] 167 small independents\" (Marchak 1995, 87), the effect has been to concentrate access to public forests in the hands of a small number of large companies. Between 1954 and 1990, the allocated cut increased from 26,600,000 to 63,800,000 cubic metres, while the share of this cut held by the 10 largest companies rose from 37 to 69 percent ( F R C 1991, 37). Operating in a highly competitive global economy, these companies have, over the years, dramatically increased the volume of forests cut and the productive capacity of mills while decreasing the numbers of workers required to do the job. Technological changes introduced into both logging and processing operations, along with corporate restructuring in the face of declining global markets and profits, have been primarily responsible for these trends (Marchak 1995, 87-104). Dwindling timber supplies, excess manufacturing capacity, and a declining and changing workforce have become familiar patterns within the industry (Hammond 1991; Marchak 1995). Wi th effective control of the forests concentrated in the hands of a few forest companies struggling to survive in the global market, there have been growing concerns about ecological destruction of the forests, unemployment, and the destabilization of industry-dependent communities. A t the same time, there have been growing concerns about the lack of effective public participation in forest-related decisions ( F R C 1991; Hammond 1991; Marchak 1995; N i x o n 1993; Vance 1990). With timber production dominating both forest management and provincial legislation, it is not surprising to see decisions about these forests shaped disproportionately by government and industry and dominated by \"the harvesting agenda\" ( F R C 1991, 111). Noting \"the depth of public interest and concern on 168 this issue,\" the Forest Resources Commission (1991, 105, 110) identified public concerns that included (a) decisions dominated by the Ministry of Forests and industry, (b) lack of public input into how planning issues are framed, (c) lack of a legislated public process, (d) limited access to information, (e) limited opportunities for input, (f) the heavy costs to individuals who participate in consultations and plan reviews, and (g) processes dominated by the question of \"how to harvest, not whether to harvest\" (110). Aboriginal Struggles for Homelands and Cultural Survival Concepts of 'public' forests and 'public' participation have taken on new meaning in the context of growing aboriginal struggles to regain control of traditional homelands and to ensure cultural survival. In an overview of aboriginal forestry in Canada, Harry Bombay (1993), executive director of the National Aboriginal Forestry Association, points to both the importance of forests to aboriginal peoples and the marginalization of aboriginal voices and concerns from forest policy and practices. Linking the fate of the forests to \"community and cultural survival,\" he comments, For many of Canada's aboriginal peoples, the forests are our home, our hunting grounds, our ceremonial lands. Forests have sustained and engaged us for centuries, but they are falling with unprecedented speed\u00E2\u0080\u0094at the hands of industry and due to short-sighted government policy (Bombay 1993, 15). Pointing out that \"provincial land-tenure systems recognize neither aboriginal and treaty rights nor the local economic benefit of subsistence activities,\" he argues that few aboriginal 169 peoples have benefitted from the forest industry but many have felt the devastating social, ecological, economic, cultural, and spiritual impacts of poor forest practices (16-17). In her review of aboriginal forestry in British Columbia, Hol ly Nathan (1993) identifies similar concerns. Pointing out that \"ownership of virtually the entire province has been under dispute for 120 years\" (1993, 137), she reminds us that, unlike the rest of Canada, there are extensive traditional lands that have never been surrendered through treaties. A s a result, unresolved aboriginal claims \"cover the whole of Crown land\u00E2\u0080\u0094and that comprises the total commercial forest base of B C \" (140). With land claims unresolved, these traditional lands have been effectively transformed into 'public' lands held by the provincial government and transferred into the hands of forest companies in the form of forest licences. With forest companies operating in traditional homelands, aboriginal communities have experienced both the erosion of forests that have sustained them for generations, and the devastating social and economic impacts of political and economic marginalization. Although the provincial government, in 1991, announced its intent to negotiate outstanding claims, Nathan argues, \"In the meantime, BC ' s First Nations are effectively shut out of participation in the province's $11 bil l ion forest industry. Virtually all the forest tenures in the province have already been allocated to major corporations and non-native interests\" (138). In asserting their claims over traditional territories, many First Nations have seen the forests as a potential source of economic self-reliance but have challenged the destructiveness of existing industry practices. A s Nathan explains, 170 ... few are wil l ing to participate in an industry that has caused so much damage without imposing their own standards. Almost without exception, First Nations leaders say they intend to blend tradition, cultural wisdom and a holistic attitude to the land in meeting their economic needs (138). A Male-Dominated Forest Industry Although the international literature on women and forests reveals both a cultural bias against subsistence economies and forest-based cultures and a gender bias against the women within these cultures, little attention has been paid to gender in the context of the forest industry as it operates in Western industrial cultures. Like women in the rural South, aboriginal women in Canada have experienced the destruction of traditional forested lands and economic and political marginalization both as indigenous peoples and as women. A s Winona LaDuke (1991, 76), co-chair of the Indigenous Women's Network, points out, \"When colonialism strikes into indigenous nations, women are marginalized from our own economies, from our own political institutions, and from our own social systems.\" Most Canadian women, however, do not face the loss of subsistence livelihoods; and some have benefitted directly or indirectly from the forest industry. Nevertheless, they too have been marginalized from a male-dominated industry. In documenting the significant contributions of women to the early American conservation movement, for instance, Carolyn Merchant (1984) notes the systematic marginalization of women from forest-related sciences, professions, and decision-making bodies as conservation and forestry became more scientific and technical. Closer to home, Patricia Marchak (1983, 121-22), in her 1977 survey of 171 employment in the forestry-dependent communities in British Columbia, found that \"between 63 and 87 per cent of the men were employed in forest industries, but in the same towns, only 3 to 7 per cent of the women were so employed.\" Commenting on the differences between men's and women's work in these communities, she observes, ... women who were employed full-time received incomes much lower than men in the same education and skill groups. A s well, women and men formed two virtually distinct labour pools\u00E2\u0080\u0094the men in production and trades work in the resource industries or in professional and managerial occupations; the women in clerical and service work ... or in a limited number of the lower-paying professions (121). A s she notes, with the exception of plywood mills, \"few women are employed in production jobs in the forest industry\" (213). B y the early 1990s, the gendered nature of the industry was still evident. According to 1991 labour force statistics on British Columbia, women account for only 10% of the workforce in the logging industry, 28% in forestry services, 9% in the wood industries, and 12% in the paper industry (Statistics Canada 1993, 132-5). In their review of women's involvement in resource and environmental management in British Columbia, Cathy Nesmith and Pamela Wright (1995, 84-5) argue that \"women are still substantially underrepresented and marginalized\" within decision-making positions in particular and within the resource sector as a whole. Within the various resource ministries in the province, for instance, they observe that \"the majority of professional or semiprofessional positions in these resource agencies [are] male-dominated\" (85). A s they explain, \"across all ministries from fisheries to forests, over ninety [per cent] of all clerical and supervisory clerical jobs are held by women. Women hold less than 6 per cent of upper-level management positions, and approximately 21 172 per cent of professional positions.\" Despite this marginalization, they argue that women have, and do play a significant role in resource management. On the one hand, they point to the important role that First Nations women have traditionally played in managing the forests. On the other hand, they point to the significant numbers of women active and in leadership positions within the environmental movement and conclude that \"women are powerful shapers of environmental practice and policy\" (80). 5.3 An Introduction to Clayoquot Sound Coastal Temperate Rainforests\u00E2\u0080\u0094Where Forests Meet the Sea Clayoquot Sound is located on the western side of Vancouver Island (see Figure 1 below). According to the Clayoquot Biosphere Project (1992, 4), it contains \"the largest tract of intact, contiguous temperate rain forest remaining on Vancouver Island, and may well be the best representative of this forest type left in North America.\" Encompassing three of the five pristine primary watersheds greater than 5,000 hectares remaining on Vancouver Island, Clayoquot Sound is recognized as an area of global ecological significance (CSSP 1995a; Kel logg 1992; Moore 1991). Describing the \"rain-drenched, moss-filled rainforests of the west coast of Vancouver Island ... as an ecological wonder of the world,\" Adrian Dorst and Cameron Young (1990, 64) write, Set in a landscape that is a maze of steep forested mountains, narrow twisting valleys and meadering [sic] saltwater fiords, the island rainforests are a cloud-encased world of wetness and wonder. 173 Figure 1\u00E2\u0080\u0094A Map of Clayoquot Sound Sources: (a) Ecotrust Canada 1997. Seeing the Ocean Through the Trees: A Conservation-Based Development Strategy for Clayoquot Sound, vi. Vancouver BC: EcoTrust. (b) CSSP (1995a, i). 174 A s a significant part of these rainforests, Clayoquot Sound covers about 262,600 hectares; 93% is forested and almost one-fifth of the 160,000 hectares deemed to be \"commercially productive\" has been logged (CSSP 1995a, 7). Many of the remaining old-growth forests are found on steep mountain slopes where, in a region of heavy rainfall and strong winds, they play a vital role in regulating run-off and stabilizing the soil (CSSP 1995b, 6-9). Structurally complex, and with few and infrequent disturbances, the rainforests of Clayoquot Sound contain \"old trees of species that are among the largest and most long-lived in the world\" and \"provide microhabitats for a great variety of plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms\" (23). A t least 13 of the 33 species of vertebrates found only in the coastal temperate rainforests of North America are found in Clayoquot Sound (29). The steep forested slopes that extend to the sea, and the network of watersheds that flow to the Pacific Ocean, form hydro riparian ecosystems that play a critical role in the provision of food, habitats, and travel corridors for many of the terrestrial and aquatic organisms; and are \"strongly affected by logging and roadbuilding activities which can alter channel morphology, hydrology, water quality, and shading or thermal regimes\" (xiii). Wi th highly productive terrestrial and marine ecosystems and a stunning landscape, Clayoquot Sound has drawn international attention as an area \"rich in forest values, with spectacular old-growth forests, a long history of First Nations' settlement, world-class scenic resources and tourism values, and major commercial fishery and timber industries\" (CSSP 1995a, 7). Despite these diverse values, most of the Sound is covered by forest licences held by large forest companies (Dorst & Young 1990, 107; Kellogg 1992, 33). In 1991, only one 175 of the watersheds in Clayoquot Sound, the Moyeha, was fully protected from logging, and the Megin was only \"partially protected\" (Moore 1991, 16). In 1993, in response to growing concerns about the fate of these forests, the provincial government extended protection to the Megin, Sydney Inlet (the lower portion of the Sydney), and a number of smaller areas, effectively doubling protected areas in Clayoquot Sound from 15% to 33% of the land base (Government of British Columbia 1993a). In the process, it also reduced both the area available for logging and the annual volume of cut. Nevertheless, the opinion of many was that \"the government made a decision to give most of the forest to the loggers\" (Marchak 1995, 113). In 1995, 70% of the remaining unlogged forests classified as 'commercially productive' were still unprotected and available for logging (CSSP 1995a, 7). A s Adrian Dorst and Cameron Young (1990, 77-93) point out, however, logging is not the only source of concern in the region. Call ing Clayoquot Sound a land of \"troubled waters and vanishing forests,\" they identify clearcutting, the destruction of salmon and fish habitats by logging, pollution of the oceans, and overfishing by commercial fleets as some of the issues to be addressed. First Nations Peoples of Clayoquot Sound The coastal temperate rainforests of North America have been home to First Nations peoples for thousands of years (Arima & Dewhirst 1990; Dorst & Young 1990; Ecotrust et al 1995; N T C 1991; Suttles 1990). When Europeans arrived in the late 1700s, they found thousands of aboriginal peoples living along the Northwest Coast in what Robert Boyd 176 (1990, 135) describes as \"one of the most densely populated nonagricultural regions of the world\" at that time. Conservative estimates of aboriginal populations prior to European contact range from 200,000 (Boyd 1990, 135) to 234,000 (Ecotrust et al 1995, 6). Among these were the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples living along the Pacific side of Vancouver Island where they developed complex cultures shaped by unbroken rocky coasts, sheltered inlets, and steep forested slopes (Arima & Dewhirst 1990; Ecotrust Canada 1997; Dorst & Young 1990, 41-5). Describing these cultures, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council ( N T C 1991, 2) writes, Long before settlers arrived in our area, strong, independent Nuu-chah-nulth nations existed on the West Coast of Vancouver Island within self-governing, self-sustaining communities. The economies and social systems within these communities were, and remain, complex. Although pre-contact populations are unknown, an estimate of 25,900 is \"accepted by some scholars and considered too high by others\" (Arima & Dewhirst 1990, 408). Cit ing sources at the Royal British Columbia Museum, Ecotrust Canada (1997, 13) claims that at the time of first contact, there were \"20,000 to 50,000 Nuu-chah-nulth scattered along the west coast of Vancouver Island, and up to 2,000 in the Clayoquot Sound area.\" Once comprising many local groups, tribes and confederacies (Arima & Dewhirst 1990, 391-3), these peoples are now represented by the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council which consists of \"14 member Tribes and over 5,500 members\" ( N T C 1991, 7). Three of these member Tribes\u00E2\u0080\u0094the Hesquiaht, Ahousaht, and Tla-o-qui-aht\u00E2\u0080\u0094live in Clayoquot Sound where they make up approximately 50% of the region's population. Although traditional territories cover all of the Sound, most live in six of the forty reserves allocated to them (Archeo Tech Associates 1991, i). 177 A s in the rest of the province, the numbers of Nuu-chah-nulth people were drastically reduced by European disease and firearms (Arima & Dewhirst 1990, 408); and their traditional lands systematically transformed into 'public' lands (Archeo Tech Associates 1991, 10; Ecotrust Canada 1997, 14; Dorst & Young 1990, 47-8). In 1991, the Hesquiaht, Ahousaht, and Tla-o-qui-aht were estimated to number \"one-tenth of the pre-contact\" population and had been allocated to 40 reserves totalling 1055 hectares (Archeo Tech Associates 1991, 10, 4). These reserves represent only 0.4% of the land base of Clayoquot Sound (Government of British Columbia, 1993a, 2); the rest of their traditional territories were declared 'public' lands, and most were allocated to major forest companies in the form of tree farm licences (TFLs). From 1905 onwards, coastal forests were opened to the claims of \"timber prospectors\" and lumber companies; by the mid-1950s, B C Forest Products and M a c M i l l a n Bloedel had acquired the rights to huge tracts of forests in and around Clayoquot Sound (Ecotrust Canada 1997, 17; Dorst & Young 1990, 86-8). In 1980 the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council filed a comprehensive claim with the federal government stating, F O R M A N Y T H O U S A N D S OF Y E A R S , without break, we have traditionally occupied and used these lands and waters to sustain our way of life. Our aboriginal interest in these territories and their natural resources has never been extinguished by treaty or superseded by law (NTC 1991, 13). With land title unsettled, the Nuu-chah-nulth have witnessed the steady destruction of old growth forests and fisheries that have sustained them for generations (Archeo Tech Associates 1991; Kosek 1993). In the process, they have experienced growing alienation from their own lands, exclusion from resource decision-making, and economic marginalization (Archeo Tech Associates 1991, 55). With few working in the forest industry, 178 the Nuu-chah-nulth of Clayoquot Sound have 60 to 70% rates of unemployment; 94% of those employed work in fishing or tourism, with fishing being the most economically and culturally significant of the two (Archeo Tech Associates 1991, i). Not only does the fishing sector account for at least 73% of the present employment of the three bands, but the fishery is the foundation of the Nuu-chah-nulth lifestyle and culture (1991, i). Over the years, declining fisheries in Clayoquot Sound have meant fewer fishing jobs, increasing unemployment, and the collapse of traditional subsistence fisheries. Attributing much of this decline to \"the destruction of the salmon streams from extensive clearcut logging,\" the Nuu-chah-nulth have called for controls on destructive logging practices (Archeo Tech Associates 1991, ii) . With the forests themselves providing important sources of food, materials, medicines, and spiritual sustenance, the Nuu-chah-nulth are increasingly insisting on significant input to decisions affecting the forests and fisheries of their traditional lands in Clayoquot Sound. In doing so, however, they have made it clear that they are not calling for an end to logging, but for an end to destructive practices that threaten the land on which they depend for cultural survival and economic renewal (Archeo Tech Associates 1991; C R B 1996; Kosek 1993). In 1994, the provincial government and the hereditary chiefs of the Nuu-chah-nulth Central Region Tribes (the Tla-o-qui-aht, Ahousaht, and Hesquiaht of Clayoquot Sound and the neighbouring Toquaht and Ucluelet nations) signed the Interim Measures Agreement ( IMA) and established the Clayoquot Sound Central Region Board, to jointly \"manage lands and resources in Clayoquot Sound, prior to the conclusion of a treaty\" ( C R B 1996, 1). Despite these initiatives, the Scientific Panel on Clayoquot Sound (1995a, 23) comments that \"consultation with Nuu-Chah-Nulth nations has not yet adequately 179 incorporated their concerns and interests, especially about culturally important areas, into forest management.\" The Community of Tofino When Europeans began arriving in Clayoquot Sound in the 1880s, they settled around Tofino and on some of the surrounding islands (Dorst & Young 1990, 48). Today, Tofino is a community of just over 1,100 people, and is the only predominantly non-aboriginal community in Clayoquot Sound. Like the Nuu-chah-nulth, many in Tofino depend on tourism and fishing (including aquaculture and seafood production) for their livelihoods ( C S S D S S C 1992b, 2-2; S C S D 1989a, ii) . Historically a fishing village, Tofino has, over the years, experienced a gradual shift towards tourism as fisheries have declined and as increasing numbers of tourists have discovered the natural beauty of Clayoquot Sound. Tourism is now \"the main growth sector of the area, and Tofino's largest source of employment\" (SCSD 1989a, ii). While salmon stocks have \"declined drastically\" since 1950, the number of visitors to the region has risen from 470,700 in 1985 to 691,300 in 1992 (Government of British Columbia 1993b, 3). A Community Values Survey (White/Barton Research Associates 1991) carried out in 1990, however, revealed both a significant number of professional occupations in the community, and gender differences in the distribution of occupations. O f the total survey population, the percentage self-employed or employed in each of the highest occupational categories was as follows: 22.2% in tourism (including restaurants); 17% in professions; and 14.1% in fishing/aquaculture. Within these three 180 occupations, men dominated fishing/aquaculture, while women dominated tourism and professional occupations. The top three occupations for women were tourism (27%), professional (21.2%), and housewife (13.2%). The top three occupations for men were fishing/aquaculture (23.8%), tourism (17.2%), and trades (16.6%) (White/Barton Research Associates 1991, 76, Appendix D). Although forestry is a significant economic activity in the region, most industry jobs are held by workers living outside of Clayoquot Sound in the neighbouring communities of Ucluelet and Port Alberni (CSSDSSC 1992b, 2-6; S C S D 1989b, ii). In 1991, for instance, the forests of Clayoquot Sound contributed a gross value of $162.3 mil l ion to the forest industry, provided $61.9 mill ion in wages and salaries to industry workers, and supported 1,404 full-time direct jobs (480 in pulp and paper mills, 376 in wood processing, and 548 in the woods). Only 22 of these industry jobs were held by people in Clayoquot Sound, mainly in small business timber sales (CSSDSSC 1992b, 2-6). Over the years, industry jobs in the Port Alberni region have declined drastically as commercially valuable forests have been logged, and as the industry has restructured and introduced labour-saving technologies (Dorst & Young 1990, 89; Wood 1992). A 1991 report on job loss in the region estimated that approximately 2,200 direct industry jobs had been lost between 1980 and 1990 (Wood 1992, 22). O f the 4,272 jobs remaining in 1991 (CSSDSSC 1992b, 2-6), it was expected that 1,340 would be permanently lost over the next three years for a variety of reasons including: technological changes; changing and declining markets; constraints on logging practices; and diminishing amounts of available timber (Wood 1992, 23). O f the 1,404 jobs dependent on 181 Clayoquot Sound, the provincial government estimated that 400 would be lost as a result of their 1993 decision to increase protected areas in the Sound (Government of British Columbia 1993b, 3). These job losses would be felt predominantly by workers and communities outside of Clayoquot Sound. With tourism and fisheries the main sources of employment for many living in Clayoquot Sound, the people of Tofino have become increasingly aware of the need to protect the ecological base of their livelihoods (SCSD 1989a; 1989b). In explaining why Tofino's share of the tourism business on the west coast was twice the size of neighbouring Ucluelet's and growing, a 1988 tourism study concluded that Tofino's success was due, in part, to its \"greater efforts to protect the natural resources on which tourism depends\" (in S C S D 1989b, 1). With Clayoquot Sound yielding over $34 mil l ion in fish and shellfish in 1988 and providing residents with an estimated 73 person/years of employment involving some 270 persons, the District Council of Tofino and the Tofino-Long Beach Chamber of Commerce also pointed to the need to ensure that \"habitats are protected and harvests are sustainable\" i f the long-term potential of this sector is to be realized (SCSD 1989b, 2). Furthermore, they pointed out that, although the benefits of forestry are now \"realized elsewhere,\" this sector has the potential to \"provide a stable source of income and employment for people in Clayoquot Sound and neighbouring areas\" provided that logging is sustainable, regeneration effective, and the ecological integrity of watersheds and old-growth ecosystems maintained (SCSD 1989b, 3). Despite the importance of healthy forests and oceans to the economic survival of Tofino, Nuu-chah-nulth nations, and the surrounding 182 communities of Port Alberni and Ucluelet, the local sentiment in 1989 was that \"these assets are severely threatened\" by the timber bias of forest management and by the unsustainable logging practices of the forest companies (SCSD 1989b, 3). Indeed, the practices of forest companies in Clayoquot Sound have been at the centre of growing concern and controversy. 5.4 Growing Concerns and Controversy From the first Meares Island blockades in the early 1980s to the mass environmental protests of 1993, the region of Clayoquot Sound has been the context within which a complex set of concerns and struggles has emerged (Ingram 1994). As this brief introduction to the region suggests, central to the growing controversy surrounding Clayoquot Sound have been (a) First Nations struggles to regain and protect traditional lands and to ensure cultural and economic survival, (b) environmental struggles to protect the ecological integrity of coastal temperate rainforests threatened by the timber bias of forest management and by the practices of the forest industry, (c) Tofino-based struggles to protect the ecological base of livelihoods in the region, (d) forest industry struggles to survive in an increasingly competitive and changing global economy, (e) industry worker struggles to protect ever-diminishing jobs on which they, their families, and their communities depend, and (f) government responses to the various, and often conflicting demands and initiatives of First Nations, environmentalists, local communities, labour, and the forest industry. The following overview of these conflicts draws primarily from the chronology of events supplied by the Friends of Clayoquot Sound (FOCS 1993). 183 In 1979, when it became clear that MacMi l l an Bloedel planned to log half of Meares Island, \"including the scenic backdrop behind Tofino\" a group of Tofino residents formed the Friends of Clayoquot Sound (the 'Friends') to protest the logging and to pressure for public input into the planning process (Dorst & Young 1990, 103; F O C S 1993, 1). In 1980, the Nuu-chah-nulth submitted their comprehensive claim to traditional territories, including Meares Island\u00E2\u0080\u0094an area of great importance to the Tla-o-qui-aht and Ahousaht people (Ecotrust Canada 1997, 19; Dorst & Young 1990, 103.-4). Efforts to resolve the conflict through a multi-party Meares Island Planning Team failed when MacMi l l an Bloedel withdrew from the process and went directly to the provincial government for approval to log 90% of Meares (Dorst & Young 1990, 103; Ecotrust Canada 1997, 19; F O C S 1993, 1). In response, Meares was declared a Tribal Park by the Nuu-chah-nulth. When loggers arrived on the island in November 1984, they were met by Nuu-chah-nulth peoples and their supporters, including the Friends of Clayoquot. According to the 'Friends' chronology, this was the \"first logging blockade in Canadian history\" (FOCS 1993, 1). A n injunction obtained by the Nuu-chah-nulth in 1985 put a stop to logging until aboriginal claims to the region were settled. These claims are still outstanding. Meanwhile, logging activities continued in the rest of the region. Over the years, environmental and First Nations protests grew in response to industry practices\u00E2\u0080\u0094such as clearcutting, extensive and inappropriate roading, and incursions into intact watersheds\u00E2\u0080\u0094that threatened the ecological integrity of the forests, destroyed traditional lands and native fisheries, and threatened the ecological base of Tofino's economy. With tourism growing in 184 economic significance, there were growing concerns about protecting tourism-dependent livelihoods in the region; by 1986, wilderness tourism operators were in the majority on the Tofino-Long Beach Chamber of Commerce (FOCS 1993, 2). When, in 1988, Fletcher Challenge attempted to build a road into Sulphur Pass in order to gain access to forests in traditional Ahousaht territories, they were met by Nuu-chah-nulth representatives, tourist operators, and members of the Friends of Clayoquot Sound (Dorst & Young 1990, 109; F O C S 1993, 2). In response, Fletcher Challenge obtained an injunction to prevent interference from protestors. Over the next four months, protests continued and thirty-five protestors were arrested (FOCS 1993, 2). Earlier in 1988, the Friends of Clayoquot Sound, supported by the local Chamber of Commerce, had called for a moratorium on logging until a sustainable development plan could be developed for Clayoquot Sound (Dorst & Young 1990, 109-10; F O C S 1993, 2). After the Sulphur Pass protests, community leaders in Tofino set in motion a process to develop a community-based sustainable development strategy for Clayoquot Sound ( S C S D 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1989d). In May 1989, Tofino submitted its proposal to the provincial government for endorsement and financial support (SCSD 1989b). In response, the government announced the formation of the Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force (CSSDTF) and charged it with the dual task of preparing a sustainable development strategy for Clayoquot Sound and meeting short-term timber needs so as to minimize disruption to the logging industry (CSSDTF 1991, 25). In its final report, the Task Force identified \"inadequacies of membership\" and \"protracted debate over short-term logging\" as 185 major reasons for its failure to produce the desired strategy (4-5). It recommended that a differently structured Steering Committee be established. In 1991, the Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Strategy Steering Committee (CSSDSSC) was formed and a process set in place for \"people with an interest in the area to develop a strategy that w i l l achieve sustainable development in Clayoquot Sound\" ( C S S D S S C 1992b, 1-2). It too was plagued by contentious issues and failed to reach consensus on a strategy for the region. In M a y 1992, environmentalists resigned from the Committee citing their frustration with a process that was \"driven by industry priorities\" and that failed to take environmental concerns seriously ( C S S D S S C 1992c, 1-1, 1-2). In October 1992, the Committee was dissolved and the provincial government was faced with making a decision about the fate of Clayoquot Sound. While the Task Force (1989-90) and the Steering Committee (1991-92) were meeting, both logging operations and environmental protests continued. Blockades in the Bulson Val ley (1991) and on the Clayoquot A r m Bridge (1992) took place in an effort to protect these watersheds from clearcutting; several protestors were arrested and jailed. With environmentalists increasingly facing loggers on these blockades, tensions between Tofino and Ucluelet increased. When Ecotrust/Conservation International released their 1992 report (Kellogg 1992) alerting the world to the importance and unprotected status of coastal temperate rainforests, the concerns of local environmentalists were affirmed and heightened and Clayoquot Sound became the focus of increasing international attention. When the government announced their Apr i l 1993 Land Use Decision, forest companies, industry 186 workers, and the communities of Ucluelet and Port Alberni found the decision acceptable. For environmentalists, First Nations, and many residents of Tofino, the decision was unacceptable and led to what Brent Ingram (1994, 23) describes as \"the largest act of c iv i l disobedience in Canadian history.\" These non-violent protests attracted support from around the world. According to organizers, an estimated 12,000 people visited the Clayoquot Peace Camp over the summer of 1993, many participated in the daily road blockades, hundreds were arrested and charged, and many jailed for their actions (Berman 1995; Berman et al 1994; Breen-Needham et al 1994; Maclsaac & Champagne 1994; McLaren 1994). Women were highly visible as organizers, facilitators, and spokespersons during the Peace Camp; the Camp itself was organized around a code of non-violent action, consensus, and feminist principles (Bell 1993; McLaren 1994). Following these protests, the government introduced a number of measures to deal with charges of inadequate consultation with First Nations, growing international pressures to improve logging practices, and continuing concerns about the fate of forest workers and industry-dependent communities. In the fall of 1993, the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel was established to review forest practices standards in the Sound and to recommend changes to ensure that they are sustainable (CSSP 1995b, 1); a new B . C . Forest Practices Code was proposed \"to ensure that a high level of forest stewardship is established and maintained in British Columbia\" (Government of British Columbia 1993c, 1). In 1994 the government entered into the Interim Measures Agreement with the hereditary chiefs of the Nuu-chah-nulth Central Region Tribes ( C R B 1996, 1), passed the B C Forest Renewal Act, and 187 established Forest Renewal B C with a mandate \"to strengthen communities, support their development and help them adjust to changes in the forest industry\" (Forest Renewal B C 1995, 27). Despite these measures, the controversy continues. 5.5 An Introduction to the Women Interviewed A l l of the twenty women that I interviewed were living in and on the outskirts of Tofino at the time of these interviews. A l l were of European descent and had arrived in Clayoquot Sound at different times over this period of growing concern and controversy. Some were living in Tofino when the first protests over Meares Island began; a few had helped to form the Friends of Clayoquot Sound. Some had been drawn to the region by the environmental protests; others found themselves drawn into the controversy after they had settled into the community. They each had their own story to tell about how and why they came to Tofino. Some came first as tourists and returned to live, and work or retire. Some had followed their dreams and/or their partners to the west coast. For others, it was the offer of jobs, or the pursuit of livelihoods that led them to discover both the region and the community. Some came with families, many arrived on their own. One had lived all her life in Tofino and was leaving for university in the fall of 1994, the year that these interviews took place. They came for a wide variety of reasons and under differing circumstances. They brought with them a wide range of experiences and interests. But their reason for staying was the same. They fell in love with the place\u00E2\u0080\u0094both the land and the community-attracted to the incredible landscape, to the people, and to the lifestyle. 188 When these women arrived in Tofino, they brought with them a wide range of life experiences and learning. A l l but two of the women had received at least some post-secondary education, and twelve had university degrees. Some had travelled to other countries. Eleven had varying degrees of previous activism within the environmental, feminist, peace, labour, and social justice movements. A t the time of the interviews they ranged in age from nineteen to seventy-two, with fourteen between the ages of thirty-one and fifty-one. Among the twenty women interviewed, Tofino and Clayoquot Sound has been 'home' for anywhere from two to forty-four years. With equal representation from both recent arrivals (2-5 years) and long-time residents (over 20 years), the average residency of these women was fourteen years. In combining the accumulated wisdom and life experiences they brought to this place with the new learning and experiences gained as inhabitants of Tofino and Clayoquot Sound, they offered a rich and diverse set of perspectives on both their 'home' and the events that have taken place over the years. Table 1 below provides a brief profile of these women at the time of the interviews. In choosing to act on their growing concerns, these women responded in a wide variety of ways\u00E2\u0080\u0094some visible, many less so. Some women were, or had been at some point over the years, visibly active in the Friends of Clayoquot Sound as directors, organizers, and spokespersons. Many had participated in one or more of the many public actions organized over the years to protest destructive forest practices and unsustainable land use policies; some had been arrested and jailed for their actions. Others were more loosely connected to the Friends and to public protests, offering material, financial, moral, and volunteer support from 189 Table 1--A Brief Profile of the Women Interviewed Name Yrs in Tofino Age Educ'n Children Work Previous Activism Amy 17 19 High School No Student Yes Catherine 5 40 Post-Sec No Misc. Jobs Yes Cori 2 24 Post-Sec No Journalist na Joan 23 48 Post-Sec 1-single parent Bed & Breakfast Yes Jan 5 34 Post-Sec No Gardening, Herbs, FOCS Yes Karen 22 51 Post-Sec 5 F/T Mother na Julie 7 36 na No Artist Yes Lorna 6 35 Post-Sec No Teacher's Aide Yes L.J . 12 50 Post-Sec No Physio-Therapist na Maryjka 3 41 Post-Sec No FOCS Yes Jean 44 72 High School 2-grown Motel na Merry 15 70 Post-Sec 3-grown Retired Teacher Yes Maureen 19 45 Post-Sec 1 Bakery Yes Valerie 7 32 Post-Sec No Bed & Breakfast Yes Norleen 3 35 Post-Sec No P/T Food Retail Yes Barbara 22 na Post-Sec 2 Daycare Worker Yes Claudette 4 33 Post-Sec No Artist, Art Retail Yes Fiona 7 38 Post-Sec No Organic Food Store No Estella 22 47 Post-Sec j Infant Worker na Deb 37 71 Post-Sec 1 -grown Motel na Note: Data derived from interviews, April-June 1994. 190 the sidelines. Only a few had participated directly in public land use decision-making processes although more were, or had been, involved in community processes. Several had steered away from collective effort altogether, choosing instead to pursue individual actions. Often, their activism changed over time; sometimes they were involved in several different activities at the same time. A n d for more than half the women, their most recent activism was merely an extension of previous or concurrent activism around social and environmental issues. A s one of the women commented in explaining her own history of activism, \"I just jumped from issue to issue cause they're basically all the same issue.\" What follows, then, is an attempt to understand the concerns and issues surrounding Clayoquot Sound through these women's eyes. In the following four chapters, I explore the four major themes around which these women framed their concerns, visions, and their activism: (1) social and ecological fragmentation and the longing for connection and wholeness; (2) unsustainable livelihoods and lifestyles and the longing for gentle ways of l iving; (3) failed processes and the longing for inclusive and community-based processes; and (4) destructive ways of being and the longing for life-affirming values and gentle ways of being. Throughout these four major themes, these women weave their experiences as both environmentally concerned citizens and as women. 191 C H A P T E R 6 F R O M F R A G M E N T A T I O N T O C O N N E C T I O N Women's Stories: Personal Reflections Beginning with Stories of Connection and Belonging In listening to these women's stories of how they came to stay in Tofino, I was struck by the sense of connection that many felt for the land, the people, and the way of life. A s Catherine puts it, \"This is home.\" Describing the sense of belonging she felt on arriving in Tofino five years ago, she continues, \"I stepped onto the beach at Chesterman Beach the first time I was here and I felt like ... I'm home. I've heard it from a number of other people in Tofino that that was the feeling the first time they came.\" Karen recalls a similar feeling that prompted her and her husband to move to Tofino twenty-two years ago. Attracted to the sea and the mountains, she explains, \"It just grabbed us! ... It's some kind of magical thing that happens to some people when they come here ... It gets you!\" Women who arrived before environmental protests began in the 1980s recalled both the integrity of the landscape and the small town atmosphere of the place. Estella describes 192 the \"unbelievable beauty\" and the \"little fishing village on the edge of nowhere\" that attracted her and her husband to the region twenty-two years ago. As she puts it, \"It was like we discovered this place, and of course we didn't because the natives had lived here for centuries and there were pioneer families here, but that was the way I felt.\" Joan \"really fell in love with the area\" through her own commercial fishing ventures twenty-three years ago. A s she explains, \"[I] just couldn't believe the incredible beauty and I really enjoyed meeting a lot of the older people and it was such living history here ... I just kept staying on and here I am!\" Maureen speaks for many of these women when she describes the sense of belonging that comes with l iving in a small town. \"I like knowing the people around me and being recognized and being known by other people. ... It's a reaffirmation of who you are, the acknowledgement that you exist. You're not a faceless unknown.\" More recent arrivals shared this sense of connection to the land and small town living but they also spoke of being drawn by many of the people living and active in the community. Cor i , for instance, arrived in Tofino two years ago to cover the blockades for a regional paper and was drawn to the people she came to know. A s she puts it, \"When I came to Tofino I loved it! ... I met a lot of incredible people!\" Catherine drove to Tofino five years ago and recalls both the distress she felt on \"seeing the clearcuts\" and the \"really amazing women here working on this issue.\" A s she explains, \"I wanted to hang out with them and be involved with them and do what they were doing. ... That's one of the appeals of this area is that there's a really strong women's community.\" The sea, mountains, forests, tiny fishing villages, l iving history, small town way of life, 'incredible' people, and strong women all 193 figured in these women's stories of connection to place, and in their decision to stay. A n d it was out of this sense of connection to and love of place that their concerns were born. Over the years, these women have seen and experienced the depth of changes taking place in their region and have become increasingly concerned about the ecological, economic, and social well-being of their \"home.\" Nineteen year old A m y expresses it well when she says, \"I've lived here all my life so I'm attached to everything here ... not only the environment but the way of life. And right now, especially, it just seems to be breaking down at such an incredible rate. ... It doesn't only include what's happening as far as logging goes and forestry practices but what's happening in the fishery and what's happening with tourism, and just this great influx of people ... A n d so it seems like all o f these things I've taken for granted all my life ... [are] not there any more and things like that are scary.\" Often in one breath, women expressed concern about ecological and social fragmentation in Clayoquot Sound and Tofino. A s we shall see, threatened rainforests, growing rifts with First Nations peoples, increasing social conflicts over land use in the Sound and in Tofino, threatened livelihoods, and threats to community stability all figured in their stories of concern. The conclusion that these women reached was that the nature of development in the Sound and in Tofino is fast destroying all that they love. A s Maryjka puts it, \"This is very fast becoming a place where people don't want to stay because what they came for is being destroyed.\" 194 Reflections. The sense of connection to place expressed by these women is significant in that it challenges notions of the disembedded and disconnected self, and hints at the notion of the relational self connected to both human and nonhuman nature (Cheney 1987; Eckersley 1992; Plumwood 1993; Warren 1990). Advancing the ecofeminist notion of the relational self, Karen Warren (1990, 143) explains, \"Humans are who we are in large part by virtue of the historical and social contexts and the relationships we are in, including our relationships with nonhuman nature.\" The sense of belonging born out of an awareness of these connections, and in the context of a particular place, is central to the bioregional concept of \"home\" and to the bioregional project of learning to live \"in place\" (Andruss et al. 1990; Plant & Plant 1990; Sale 1985). V a l Plumwood (1993, 154) argues that the relational self provides \"a more adequate, less dualistic account of s e l f and opens up possibilities for exploring less instrumental relationships with human and nonhuman earth others. In this case, women's sense of connection to the land and people of Clayoquot Sound provides a basis for exploring these possibilities. As we shall see, connection to place plays a significant role in how these women understand and frame their concerns. Feeling connected to place, they have grown increasingly aware of how these connections are being threatened not just by forest practices but by the nature of development in both the Sound and Tofino. Exploring Connections to the Forests of Clayoquot Sound Because their activism focused on forest issues in Clayoquot Sound, I was particularly interested in exploring women's connections to the forests of the region. It 195 became clear to me that, whether or not these women spent much time in the forests, they felt connected to and concerned about the well-being of the forests of their region. In explaining their relationship to the forests, they spoke of both the vital role that forests play in sustaining life on this planet and the meaning that forests bring to their lives. L . J . doesn't have much time to backpack in the forests but she has planted hundreds of trees on her own land and is concerned that Tofino maintain its treed character. Explaining her relationship to the forests, she says, \"Trees are absolutely one of the cornerstones of life on the planet... One of the biggest things I thank them for is the air quality out here. ... I don't have anything mystical about trees, I just have to have them around me. I don't feel comfortable l iving in a tree-less environment. ... To me it's not a home, it's an alien type of existence.\" Lorna has spent a lot of time in the forests and expresses similar sentiments of connection, dependency, and meaning. \"I love the forests in this region ... They're teeming with life, they're completely wi ld , they're beautiful! ... I know that we need to have forests to live ... because they provide us with essential life support services. But for me its more than that, because even i f they didn't provide any of those things, I still think they're essential. They're essential for the human spirit and of course for all the wi ld life they sustain.\" What was particularly interesting to me was the sense of belonging that many of these women expressed. A s A m y puts it, \"I feel like I really fit.\" For many women, this sense of belonging and connectedness was described as something spiritual, magical, or mystical. Feeling part of something much greater than themselves, they often expressed a sense of awe, mystery, and humility. From this place of connectedness, these women shared some of the ways in which the forests have meaning in their lives. The following are examples: 196 * forests as sacred and loving space \"The forest is a sacred, sacred place for me. A s soon as I step into a forest I feel that I'm wrapped in love and this gentle, gentle energy.\" (Julie) * forests as teacher \"There's just so many lessons in the forest... trees standing and staying put for thousands of years and then falling where they fall and being homes for the next generations. It's good lessons for me. I've moved around too much in my life.\" (Jan) * forests as source of clarity \"When I am in the forest is when I feel the most connected with me and I get the clearest answers to any big problem that I have. ... So as I see myself and the forest, I want to always see them together. I do not see them as separate.\" (Norleen) * forests as nourishment for the soul \"That's what nourishes my soul is being out in nature. ... I don't know i f you'd call it spiritual but I definitely need that and I think a lot of people here do.\" (Maryjka) * forests as purpose in l iving \"Without forests, without nature, there would be no purpose in l iving. That's what it's all about for me. It's being out in nature, observing wildlife, drinking mountain water from a stream, observing salmon spawning. That is what living is all about.\" (Lorna) * forests as a source of perspective and spiritual connection \"The old growth forests provide sort of a sense of history of this area. It puts us in perspective and reminds us that we're ... so small in the scheme of things. A n d it's the source of inspiration. The forests are so beautiful. They're a place for getting in touch with our ... spiritual side.\" (Barbara) What was also interesting to me were the remarks of a few women who expressed a preference for, or who felt a greater freedom to be themselves in the context of, relationships with nonhuman nature. Julie, for instance, expresses her preference for the company of forest 197 creatures. Explaining the great comfort she finds in her connections with \"the trees and the birds and the creatures,\" she comments, \"I love my human family but I'm very much at home just being out there.\" In a similar vein, Valerie explains the sense of freedom to be herself that she finds in the forests. \"There's a certain part of me which is really suppressed in dealing with humans, and that just goes when I'm in the forest. I hear different things and I'm much more aware of smells, of the boundaries of my body, what I'm close to and what I'm not. It demands a whole different aspect o f me and I just appreciate it so much. It's just such a relief.\" A n d as she continues, part of what she appreciates is the freedom to be fully who she is as a physically strong woman. I'm physically really strong ... That whole aspect of me is something that is really not appreciated in society ... There's no real appreciation for women who are able to just do what their body can do and so when I get out into the wood ... there are no bounds there. A n d so physically it is really freeing for me.\" A s these women's comments suggest, relationships with nonhuman nature can provide us with opportunities to explore ways of relating and being that extend beyond those defined for us within human culture. A s women, these relationships can provide the \"space\" to explore what it means to be fully human, as women, outside the constraints of socially constructed gender roles that define what it means to be male and female. Reflections. The sense of connection to the forests of Clayoquot Sound expressed by these women challenges the human-nature dualism of western thought. A s V a l Plumwood 198 (1993, 48-53) points out, this dualism hyperseparates human and nonhuman nature, denies dependence and relationship, reinforces notions of human superiority, and reduces nonhuman nature to mere instruments of the disembedded self. In this case, women's sense of relatedness to the forests of Clayoquot Sound, and their acknowledgement of dependency on the forests for both life and meaning, run counter to these hierarchical notions and present possibilities for non-instrumental relations with nonhuman nature based on such concepts as \"respect, benevolence, care, friendship and solidarity\" (Plumwood 1993, 155). It is clear that, for many of these women, a sense of connection to the forest helps to shape their own understanding of what it means to be human, and female, in the context of forested lands to which they belong. That many women found spiritual meaning in these relations suggests that a sense of relatedness to and dependency on nonhuman nature, born out of the concrete contexts of our lives, can play a role in healing the dualistic split between the material and sacred. A s ecofeminists insist, a spirituality based on an embodied sense of connection to life on earth is essential to the cultivation of relationships that are life-affirming rather than life-destroying (Adams 1993, Starhawk 1987). Coming to a Place of \"Knowing\" and Concern In exploring how it was that these women came to be concerned about the well-being of the forests of Clayoquot Sound, it became clear that, for many, direct experience played an important role in shaping their concerns and in motivating their activism. Women who spent time in the forests and in the Sound spoke of directly experiencing the fragmentation and 199 destruction. Joan speaks of how, over the years, her fishing excursions brought her face-to-face with the degradation taking place. \"You'd go back the next summer to fish and an island, that was just gorgeous and you'd had a picnic on the last year, was stripped bare and so much of that area was getting very degraded with clearcut logging right down to gorgeous open ocean beaches.\" Maryjka comments on the growing fragmentation caused not just by logging but by a variety of human activities in the Sound. \"If you go kayaking ... it's not a pleasant experience. There're clearcuts everywhere. Around every corner there's another float house, another cabin, another fish farm, an abandoned fish farm or dock or boat just sitting there rusting. Clayoquot Sound is very small and is already very fragmented.\" For many women, witnessing the fragmentation was a bodily experience involving not only sight~I see the destruction\u00E2\u0080\u0094but other senses\u00E2\u0080\u0094I hear, smell, and feel the destruction. Barbara, for instance, connects vision and emotion when she says, \"It was heart-breaking. Every time we went canoeing we could see a different area that was clearcut.\" For Karen, seeing the devastation brings a visceral response, \"I can hardly stand to look at a clearcut. It's like a pain in your gut!\" Norleen describes the sounds, sights, smells, and grief she experienced as she witnessed the felling of trees and the destruction of other creatures' homes. \"It was so horrifying to hear the tree fall! I'd never heard that sound before\u00E2\u0080\u0094part of me wants to call it a scream ... A n d it's being ripped from the earth ... and the ground shakes ... and there's the smell of chain saws and the smell of the sawdust. ... A n d all of a sudden this little tiny chipmunk ... jumped up onto another log in front of me and was running up and down the log, jumping up and down crying, squeaking ... and it was slowly dawning on me that here's a creature whose home is gone!\" 200 Catherine explains these embodied responses in terms of connection. A s she puts it, \"We have an energy connection with everything around us, and when trees and animals and things are being hurt, we're hurt too!\" In explaining their activism, several women spoke about the process of coming to a place of \"knowing\"-a place where, as Valerie puts it, \"You can't stop because you know too much.\" For these women, this has been a process of connecting knowledge from sources both external and internal to the self. High school student A m y summarizes the experiences of many women when she speaks of the different sources of knowledge that have fuelled her concerns and activism. \"I think it's this sort of balance between what I read and what I see and hear ... and then what I just feel, which is like a pain inside when I see that kind of environmental destruction.\" Fiona describes the months she spent learning about the issues. \"I spent a good eight, nine months ... learning what I could and making sure that i f I did decide to make a stand for the trees that it was going to be the right thing for me to do. ... I just sat back and learned, and the more I learned, the more I knew I needed to do something.\" She shares some of the ways of knowing that convinced her to take a stand. \"There's the scientific approach where you know that that's the way that the water gets transformed and the air gets cleaned ... and the destruction that I can see and that makes me angry ... and several experiences of going into the forest and just feeling this joyful feeling and knowing that... this is how a human is supposed to feel, this is what life ought to be more like.\" L . J . describes her own careful process of learning. 201 \"When all this first started, this concern about logging, I really didn't really know what I thought about it and it just took a lot of listening and study before I could make up my mind which side of the issue I was sitting on.\" She connects her growing understanding of the issues with her own experiences as a health care worker. \"I work in health care and we're getting to be very aware of poor air quality with marked increase in respiratory problems ... that are pretty directly attributable to the air quality of the planet. A n d when you start tying that back to what's happening with deforestation and the impact that's having on air quality, then you become concerned ... not only about losing a resource or losing ecosystems, but actually losing the ability to live on the planet.\" What was interesting to me was the role of scientific knowledge in the process of coming to a place of \"knowing.\" For most women, scientific knowledge had a role to play in increasing their understanding of the issues and in confirming felt concerns. But they also insisted that this is not the only way of knowing. Merry, for example, affirms her own capacity to know and understand when she says, \"I am not a forest ecologist or scientist of any kind, but it doesn't take a whole lot of degrees or anything to be able to see that... we are all interrelated and interdependent and that to destroy something ... like a temperate rain forest is sheer stupidity!\" For Fiona, emotions are an important source of truth. That's where the truth is. ... That's where the flow is that unsticks us. It budges us, it keeps us fluid and balanced. ... It keeps us out of denial, stops us from pretending that things aren't as bad as they really are.\" Karen insists that we have an inner wisdom that is \"invaluable.\" \"I have learned through the years that we have some innate wisdom and, i f we're listening to it, it can guide us and it usually is correct. A n d i f you're too logical and too scientific and technologically oriented, then you can't hear.\" 202 For these women, internal sources of \"knowing\"-felt connections, emotion, intuition, innate wisdom\u00E2\u0080\u0094have been important sources of personal \"truths.\" Whether or not science had a place in these personal \"truths\" seemed to depend on whether or not there was a consistency between internal and external knowledges. Although not all women spoke of these struggles, those who did spoke of struggling to honour deeply felt personal \"truths\" in the context of conflicting external scientific and expert claims. Maryjka, for instance, draws on a deeply felt \"connection with the wi ld places of the earth\" and her own inner truths to reject scientific arguments used to justify clearcutting. A s she explains it, \"You have to follow your heart! A n d so even i f all the facts said it's okay to cut it down, I don't.\" In recounting their personal journeys to a place of \"knowing\" and concern, these women often described the ways in which their own activism has deepened their sense of connection, concern, and responsibility. For many, direct engagement has helped them to see connections between local and global concerns, and between economic, social, and environmental issues. Joan describes the evolution of her own understanding. \"In the process of getting involved you become more educated about a lot of different issues. ... It becomes all the more important because you see it in relation to the rest of [Vancouver] Island ... to the rest of the temperate rainforest of the world ... N o w we realize how important it is to tourism and our livelihoods and the quality of life we have here and our children and what we want for the future.\" Other women spoke about how their activism has helped them to connect different ways of knowing. Some women started from a real felt connection to the forests and through their activism came to understand more of the scientific basis for their concerns. Others began from a more intellectual and scientific understanding of the issues and through their activism 203 came to experience both the forests and a deeper sense of connection and concern. Norleen, for example, began her activism with an intellectual understanding of the issues. A s she describes it, \"I knew that clear cut logging was a bad thing. I read the papers and saw the graphs and charts but hadn't really stood in a fresh clear cut and been emotional about it and felt that connection.\" It was her activism that took her into the forests. She describes the personal awakening that happened when she finally came to experience both the connection and the destruction. \"What I think awakened was a part of me that said: This matters so much that I won't forget, I can't forget. I know now. I know. A n d a W I L D part of me realized: I'm connected! I'm infinitely, intricately, completely connected with the life on this planet! A n d I have a responsibility.\" In coming to a place of \"knowing\" that all is not well in the forests of Clayoquot Sound, many women expressed a sense of responsibility to protect that to which they feel connected and on which they depend for both life and meaning. A s A m y puts it in explaining her own activism, \"It's just like a connection that is really painful i f it's broken. ... A n d when I feel pain, then you have to do something to alleviate the pain or to heal yourself. A n d to me, that's becoming involved and becoming active.\" Reflections. These women's stories of coming to a place of \"knowing\" and concern challenge the mind-body dualism which privileges scientific knowledge and discounts the body as an important source of knowledge. In affirming the importance of direct experience, 204 felt connection, emotion, and inner wisdom, and in sharing their efforts to fully understand the issues at hand, many of these women challenge the hierarchical ordering of mind over body. In doing so, they provide concrete examples of the ecocentric claim that we are capable of knowing with our \"whole\" self\u00E2\u0080\u0094mind, body, and spirit. As Morris Berman (1990) insists, \"coming to our senses\"\u00E2\u0080\u0094experiencing the world with all our senses\u00E2\u0080\u0094is essential i f we are to overcome dualistic consciousness and the sense of alienation and disconnection of self to earth others. A s these women's stories suggest, an openness to all ways of knowing and an openness to other \"knowers\" can play an important role in connecting us to both our whole self and to others. That \"real bodily engagement with the world\" helps us to do so (Berman 1990, 82), is supported by women's own stories of how their activism has deepened their sense of felt connection, \"knowing,\" and concern. In sharing their efforts to listen to and learn from the views of others, and in critically acknowledging the role of science in deepening their understanding, they locate \"embodied knowledge\" and the \"knowing s e l f in the context of relationships with other \"knowers\" who may, or may not, share their views. Embodiment and Motherhood - The Female Self It was in the context of sharing stories of felt connections and \"embodied knowledge\" that many women linked their activism to their own feelings of bodily connection, as women, to life on earth. A m y , for instance, feels \"a real tie to the soil and to the water and those are things that flow through me.\" Connecting these feelings of bodily connection and her identity as a woman, she offers a body-based explanation for both her own activism and that 205 of other women. A s she puts it, \"I see a real connection between women and the earth and I tie it all together within myself. ... Some of the connections I make are that I am a woman, and that's why this is so incredibly important to me.\" Whether or not they were mothers, many women spoke of their potential to give birth as something that connects them to life. A t the time of these interviews, Norleen had no children, but she speaks of how this life-giving potential motivates her, and other women, to participate actively in the protection of life. \"I have the potential to carry life within me so perhaps [that is why] ... I feel that responsibility [to be active] ... I've never born children so I don't know that instinct completely. ... But perhaps our potential to give birth ... makes the connection that much closer [so] that the death on the planet is the death to the child is the death to myself.\" Julie voices a similar sentiment. \"Even though I've never had a child, I think it's because of our life-giving power that we recognize the earth as life giving ... I don't know that experience [of giving birth] but I think I still have that connection because I'm a woman and I shed blood every month like half the world does and there's a lot of power in that.\" Aware of their own sense of bodily connection, most of these women were, nevertheless, reluctant to claim a superior status for women and to deny men's capacity for bodily connection to the earth. Experiencing these connections through female bodies, some women admitted that they couldn't know how men might feel. A s Norleen puts it, \"I don't know what it's like for a man. I don't know how connected they feel.\" Julie believes that both women and men have a sacred connection to the earth and to life. But as she puts it, \" A lot of men haven't woken up to that and the men I'm meeting through this movement are, so it's 206 really lovely to be with them.\" A n d others insisted that there are bound to be differences in how men and women experience these connections. As Catherine explains, \"I really think that because women give birth there is a different perspective on the way the world works and I think that women have a different connection to life than men do, although I don't really know.\" For some women, it was the act of giving birth that intensified their sense of connection to life and their concern for the well-being their own children and future generations. In commenting on the research findings three years after her interview, and following the birth of her son, Norleen says, \"Now that I have given birth, that sense of connection is much much more powerful than I had ever realized!\" Maureen recalls how the birth of her son connected her intensely to what was happening. As she explains, \"I can't remember having been as influenced or as affected ... before I had a child but certainly after I had a child it was suddenly this 'How can people be so stupid? H o w can we let that sort of thing go on?'... [It was] just that sort of absolute connection to l iving things and new living things!\" Merry makes links between the birth of her son and her commitment to peace activism. \" M y oldest boy was born two months before the Hiroshima bomb and from that moment on I said, I have a responsibility to my kids to prevent... their world from being destroyed.\" A s a mother of five, Karen admits that having children has made her especially concerned about what's happening to the forests of Clayoquot Sound. A s she explains, \"When you decimate the forests, it has an effect on the whole wide world and I didn't wanna raise these kids and then put 'em out into a desert or something that looks like the atom bomb has been here.\" A s a potential mother, her nineteen-year-old daughter A m y voices the same concerns, 207 \"What I just keep thinking over and over again is, what kind of an earth do I want to inherit or do I want my children to inherit?\" But women who had chosen not to have children also voiced concerns about future generations. A s Maryjka puts it, \"You don't need to create new children in order to love children.\" A n d as Karen insists, both women and men are capable of loving and caring for children. Speaking of the vital role that her husband plays in caring for their children, she explains, \"I think there's a difference between being a mother and a father but ultimately I think what our desires for the kids are is basically the same. ... I think that they both play an invaluable part in nurturing children as they grow up.\" Whether or not they had children, many women shared stories of experiencing, through the female body, a deep sense of connection to, and concern for, life on this planet. What was interesting, however, was the contrast between embodied feelings and women's ability and willingness to act on them. For the most part, highly visible front line activist strategies were pursued by women without children. Maryjka feels deeply connected to the forests and has dedicated her life to wilderness protection. For her, this is a moral decision similar to the commitment that many women make to their children. A s she puts it, \"I think it important to have a moral purpose to your existence ... For a lot of women their children are their moral purpose and I don't have that... Being alone like me ... you feel the need that you have to do something morally purposeful.\" A s she points out, responsibility for children makes front line activism difficult and many women who \"were active with the Friends before they had children\" had less time for activism once they became mothers. As Jan, a director of the Friends, puts it, \"I don't have children and I think it gives me more time to act on my earth connections, gives me more 208 freedom to protect it.\" Women with children talked about having less time and energy for, and being less wil l ing to take the risks associated with, front line activism. Karen is the full-time mother of five and considers the parenting of her children to be extremely important. In the context of these responsibilities, she comments, \"I don't have enough time to do my real work, which is here, and be out on the front lines.\" Furthermore, she shares a deep fear that has kept her off the front lines for years. A s she puts it, \" A really big motivation for me is that I never wanted to take a chance that they might take my children away from me.\" Supportive of the work the Friends are doing, she chooses to provide financial, material, and moral support in the background. Joan is a single parent and owner/operator of a bed and breakfast and admits that, even though she cares about the issues, she has felt \"really quite limited\" in her activism. A s she puts it, \"When your children are small it's hard. ... You're working two jobs plus trying to be kind of involved and aware.\" She explains her decision never to \"take actions such as c iv i l disobedience and get arrested.\" \"When you're a single parent and you have to support the household, you can't afford to go and be held up in court for weeks. A n d you can't afford a lawyer and you can't afford the ja i l time and you've got to run your business. I mean, i f I'm not here doing it, no one is! ... So I have just chosen to do things that were more compatible and feasible.\" Concerned about the future of her community, and seeing the connection between ecological, economic, and community well-being, she has participated in a number of processes designed to addresses issues of sustainability in the region. Over the years, Maureen has been intensely involved in the Friends, the Chamber of Commerce, the local Council , and various planning and land-use committees. Admitting that it has been \"very difficult\" to be so busy and still have time for her child, she acknowledges the importance of having a partner who 209 \"has been great!\" in sharing the care of their young son. Estella, on the other hand, has felt more freedom to be active as her children have grown up. As she explains, \"I don't have to take so much responsibility for them. ... Like last summer I spent pretty well every morning at the blockade. Had I had an infant, I know I wouldn't have done that.\" Reflections. These women's stories of embodiment and motherhood offer insight into women's experiences as biological and social beings. Women's stories of bodily connection reveal some of the particular ways in which women connect with life\u00E2\u0080\u0094both human and nonhuman\u00E2\u0080\u0094through the female body. As Robin Eckersley (1992, 66) warns, however, \"While it cannot be denied that male and female bodily experiences do differ ... it is problematic to suggest that the particular bodily experiences that are unique to women confer on women a superior status (as distinct from merely special) insight into our relatedness with life.\" These women's own reluctance to claim a superior status for women, or to deny men's capacity for bodily connection, reflects Eckersley's position and the sentiments of many ecofeminists (Davion 1994; Hutcheson 1995; Lahar 1991; Plumwood 1993; Roach 1991). Their stories also reveal the differences between biological and social motherhood. A s Joan Griscom (1981, 8) puts it, \"simply because women are able to bear children does not mean that doing so is essential to our nature.\" Nevertheless, as feminists point out, women's lives have long been shaped by a gendered division of labour that disproportionately assigns the 210 unpaid work of caring and nurturing children to women (Mies 1986; Tong 1989; Walby 1989). A s this study shows, the social responsibilities of motherhood can constrain women from acting fully on felt connections and concerns. That mothers found other ways to be active, and that many women chose not to have children, shows that this patriarchal structure does not constrain women totally. Furthermore, the fact that many women on the front lines did not have children suggests that framing women's environmental activism as an extension of traditional motherhood roles is too narrow. Instead, I would argue that it is the sense of care and responsibility born out of felt connection and concern that motivates their activism. Having to make moral choices between caring for their children or nonhuman nature is, perhaps, the dilemma that many women face in the context of inequitable responsibility for the care of children. In a culture where men and women shared this responsibility, both would be freer to act on felt connections and concerns for human and nonhuman life on this planet. Responding From the Context of Their Lives\u00E2\u0080\u0094Beyond Motherhood In explaining their activism, these women shared stories of the self situated in a complex web of social relations that include, but extend beyond, the social responsibilities of motherhood. Life circumstances, cultural rifts, social conflict, supportive relationships, and conflicting responsibilities were some of the forces that shaped their responses to felt connections and concerns. 211 Life circumstances. A s many women pointed out, front line activism requires tremendous amounts of time, energy, and commitment. Some women were wil l ing, able, and even compelled to devote their lives to their activism. Valerie, a highly visible spokesperson for the Friends, made such a life decision. A s she puts it, \"There comes a point where, when you know enough, you can't run away.\" Julie speaks of how this decision changed her life plans. \"I moved here seven years ago to live in the woods and be a painter but... had to set my dream ... aside for now because the earth is getting raped and I couldn't stand by and just watch it happen.\" For the most part, women like Valerie and Julie were single, flexible, without children, and able to get by on low incomes. For many women, however, the circumstances of their lives limited the time and energy available for activism. Besides the demands of motherhood, earning a l iving, age, and health all played a role in shaping what women were wi l l ing and able to do. With little or no pay available from activism, some women spoke of how earning a l iving has constrained their activism. As Jean, co-owner of a small motel, puts it, \"I'd rather be out there being more active ... but when you've got a business to run ... it takes the two of us.\" Other women spoke of how age and health have made it difficult to meet the physical and emotional demands of front line activism. Merry has a long history of activism, but at seventy speaks of \"passing the torch\" to the younger generation. Finding meetings and protests too emotionally and physically draining, she explains, \"I'm going to give as much support as I can without tearing down my nervous system.\" For some women, a lack of skills, experience, or confidence has been a significant factor in choosing low profile strategies. A s one women put it in expressing her desire to be more involved in local politics, 212 \"Unti l I learn those skills better I'd rather not go and make a fool of myself.\" Other women spoke of their dislike of meetings and group efforts and of their preference for individual efforts and self-directed projects. A s Fiona puts it in explaining her decision to leave front line activism, \"I decided that I'd had enough of group work ... and wanted to do something on my own.\" Cultural rifts. A s members of the predominantly white community of Tofino, these women found themselves responding to concerns about the forests of Clayoquot Sound in the context of historical divisions and tensions between First Nations and non-aboriginal peoples. Concerned about the impact of ecological destruction on Nuu-chah-nulth communities, many acknowledged a long history of exploitation and racism that has eroded traditional lands, livelihoods, and ways of life. A s Norleen explains, \"non-aboriginal people walked in there and directly interfered with their lives.\" A s \"non-aboriginal people,\" many of these women had, over the years, extended moral and active support to the Nuu-chah-nulth in their struggles to protect the ecological integrity of, and regain sovereignty over, traditional lands. But they had also experienced the rifts and tensions between their two cultures. As Fiona puts it, \"the alienation between the native communities and the white community of Tofino here is pretty apparent.\" Expressing her personal discomfort with this alienation, Maureen comments, \"I think it has been better and I think there were certain members in the community who crossed that boundary with no problem at all ... But there's a whole bunch of us~ cause I put myself in that category\u00E2\u0080\u0094of people who are separated.\" 213 A s several women remarked, the rift seems to be widening. Barbara, for instance, notes that \"the native communities have pulled back from the environmental front over the last year or so.\" A s she explains, \"There's a lot of concern about unemployment on the reserves and I think there's some pressure from within the Nuu-chah-nulth communities to keep open the different options for employment, including logging.\" Aware of pressures and divisions within First Nations communities, and wanting to both respect aboriginal rights and protect the forests of Clayoquot Sound, many women felt caught in the middle of two struggles and uncertain how best to respond. Estella gives voice to these tensions when she says, \"Philosophically, they should be making the decisions and I'm just hoping that their decisions don't have to do with clearcutting.\" Social conflict. A s environmental struggles have unfolded in Clayoquot Sound, women have found themselves responding to their concerns in the context of growing social conflicts between environmentalists, First Nations, and loggers/forest industry/developers over land use in the Sound and in Tofino. Although there had long been divisions between \"oldtimers\" and \"newcomers,\" many women could remember times when the community had been much more united and cohesive. Now, Lorna points out, \"Tofino is very split on anything to do with anything!\" Several women expressed the growing discomfort they have felt in trying to express and act on their concerns. A s Merry explains, \"I'm a very gregarious person. I just like to be friendly with people and yet I'm not gonna hide my interests or my concerns. But it's uncomfortable if, when you do what you feel like doing to express your ideas and your feelings ... you're sneered at or treated in this sort of unfriendly, unfriendly way.\" 214 In the context of social conflicts, visibility and vulnerability were issues that many women struggled with. Women who were visibly active spoke of being pressured, threatened and intimidated. Lorna works at a school in neighbouring Ucluelet and recalls community pressures to have her fired for her activism. As she explains, \"Parents ... felt I would be a very poor role model for their children.\" Valerie is a highly visible spokesperson for the Friends and speaks of the \"menacing atmosphere\" that makes her feel unsafe. \"When I drive through Port Alberni now, I feel nervous because I know that people ... are putting out the message that I'm dangerous, that I'm a menace, that I'm a threat to their jobs.\" Some women spoke of having to temper their activism to protect their livelihoods. A s the owner of a small business, Maureen explains both her sense of vulnerability and her early decision never to be arrested. \"At first it was because I was being targeted by the companies. ... If I managed to get myself arrested they were gonna sue me for everything I had. ... I was one of the few people who had anything tangible that they could finger so at that point I stayed back and didn't get myself arrested and have continued to be in that position. I have just felt it's not worth it!\" Other women spoke of deliberately choosing forms of activism that would decrease their visibility and vulnerability. Claudette, for instance, explains her decision to \"just be in a basement making a map\" that would give others a better understanding of the region. A s she puts it, \"Sometimes they deliberately do intimidating things to make everyone shut up and be quiet and not do anything vocal and it works!\" But some women also spoke of being torn between their activism and their relationships with friends and acquaintances. A s a daycare worker, Barbara speaks of how difficult it has been to stand on the blockades facing \"friends and people that you'd been to funerals with ... [and] mothers and grandmothers of children I 215 had looked after.\" A s she insists, \"They are good people. But at the same time I was torn!\" Sharing this discomfort, A m y comments, \"You can see their pain. They're hurting just as much as anybody else.\" In the context of pressures, threats, and torn loyalties, many women explained their continued activism in terms of a deep personal conviction that their activism was both \"right\" and necessary. A s Barbara puts it, \"I could see that what we were doing was right for Clayoquot Sound.\" Supportive relationships. Whether or not women chose highly visible and demanding activist strategies, they spoke of the support, inspiration, motivation, and strength they received from others in their lives. The forests, children, partners, friends, family, community members, activists, and other women all figured in women's stories of support. For many women, the forests have played a significant role in motivating and sustaining their activism. Asked what keeps her going, Maryjka responds, \"Maybe it's just that I wouldn't want to be alive i f I didn't know there was wilderness.\" Cori speaks of the strength she gains from her time in the forests. \"When I get de-motivated or when I get burnt out, that's where I go ... it's a very rejuvenating place.\" Besides being motivated by concern for their children's future, some women spoke of how their children have encouraged their activism. Explaining how her daughter's activism pulled her into the protests of 1993, Karen exclaims, \"I never imagined in all my wildest dreams that I would ever be out on blockades!\" Maureen appreciates not only the child care that her partner shares, but the quiet times they share together and the limits he sets on her activism. As she puts it, \"His wanting me to spend 216 some time with him keeps me sane.\" Valerie speaks of the friendships that have sustained her through tough times. \"When there's nothing keeping you going except the fact that you know that there's somebody you can go to and just sit and have a chat with, and everything seems totally chaotic and horrible, that's when you start to really appreciate the friends within the movement.\" Women also felt inspired, supported, and reassured by other members of the community, visitors from other parts of the world, and the hard work and dedication of activists locally and globally. For many women, one of the strongest sources of support and inspiration has been other women. Using words like \"this incredible female force,\" or \"really amazing women,\" women spoke of how, individually and collectively, other women have been role models, mentors, inspirational leaders, and sources of political and spiritual support. A s Fiona puts it, \"We support each other.\" Acknowledging the support offered by a particular group of women in the community, Cori comments, \"If you have a personal problem or i f you have a political problem, you know there's always that group of women that w i l l support you, which is real nice.\" Conflicting responsibilities. In the context of their activism, women often spoke of feeling torn between caring for the self, the forests, and significant people in their lives. Caught in a complex web of relationships of care and responsibility, women shared stories of their struggles with denial, disconnection, burnout, guilt, and insignificance. Women who had immersed themselves in activism spoke of the heavy costs to self and relationships that come with denying or losing oneself to intense activism. A s A m y explains, \"It's really easy 217 to get disconnected from yourself and just go full bore into this activism and lose yourself in it and then to come back and say, 'Oh yeah, what about me?'\" With no time for activities and relationships that nurture and sustain her, Valerie speaks of the personal costs of her activism. \"This campaign has taken up every minute of my life. ... I haven't been going to the coffee houses and doing the singing that I like to do. I haven't had enough time for my gardens, for my friends. Y o u know, it's hard to maintain a rounded self when all you ever do is give slide shows and talk about Clayoquot Sound. ... I had to give up everything for the past year!\" Feeling good about the campaign, she comments, \"I feel less good about my self.\" Lorna speaks of the stress that a period of intense activism put on both herself and her relationship. \"There would be all night meetings and phone calls and faxes and discussions and it did affect my personal life in that my partner just about left me. I was pretty stressed out.\" In explaining her own decision to change her activism, she comments, \"I wasn't taking enough time out for myself and to spend with my friends and family and my partner and so it was sort of affecting my personality.\" A s Maryjka puts it, \"You get burned out!\" In making choices between their activism and care for the self and others, several women spoke of their struggles with feelings of guilt, invisibility, and insignificance. Maureen speaks of \"continually having these guilt feelings\" about \"not spending enough time\" with her son. Julie describes how hard it was to give herself permission to take a break from her activism. \"I went through a period this winter of feeling that I'm not doing enough and I was feeling very low about it all , not even granting myself a couple of months just to relax.\" A s Norleen puts it, \"It's the old pattern that something else is more important than me.\" Describing her own efforts to find some balance in her life, she speaks of her struggles with \"eco-guilt\" and invisibility. 218 \"I was feeling that my visible work ... wasn't very big ... and so I was starting to feel that eco-guilt: Oh dear, I better get in there, everybody else is! ... A n d it's like, N o ! I have to take care of myself and then I'll have way more energy ... and I also realized that I wasn't acknowledging [all my] non-visible work!\" Catherine speaks of her decision to withdraw from front line activism to do \"more of what feeds me and not what depletes me.\" But as she explains, \"I sometimes feel guilty about not being more active.\" Reflections. In revealing the contextual nature of their activism, these women's stories challenge notions of the autonomous self and provide partial insight into the complex web of human and nonhuman relations that support, constrain, and help to shape their activism. In particular, these stories locate the felt connections and concerns of the self in the context of a dynamic web of social and ecological relationships and tensions, and in the context of multiple forms of domination, including those of race (First Nations) and class (loggers and their families). In choosing strategies that \"fit\" the circumstances of their lives, in sharing their responses to cultural rifts, social conflicts, and conflicting responsibilities, and in acknowledging support from human and nonhuman others, these women provide support for ecocentric notions of relatively autonomous beings who are \"neither completely passive and determined ... nor completely autonomous and self-determining\" (Eckersley 1992, 53). In sharing their struggles to do what is \"right\" in the context of their lives and activism, they support feminist and ecofeminist claims about the contextual nature of moral 219 decisions (Cheney 1987; Gill igan 1982; Plumwood 1993; Warren 1990). In sharing their personal struggles to care for the self in the context of this complex web of relationships, they include the self in the domain of moral concern and support feminist and ecofeminist calls for an ethic of care that does not involve loss of the self in the care of others (Gill igan 1982; Plumwood 1993; Tronto 1989). The research findings suggest that care of the self, in the context of relationships of care and responsibility with human and nonhuman nature, contributes to the construction of nondualistic notions of the self dynamically connected to, but differentiated from, human and nonhuman earth others. The research findings also reveal a central challenge for ecofeminists: how best to respond to environmental and gender concerns in the context of a web of interlocking oppressions and struggles that may have conflicting interests and perspectives. In reflecting on her own environmental activism in Clayoquot Sound, Tzeporah Berman (1995, 91) ponders the moral dilemma of how best to respond to ecological destruction in the context of loggers' concerns for jobs and First Nations struggles for self-determination. Finding few answers, she comments,\" [We] have yet to establish a truly 'ecofeminist activism' that ensures that we are not oppressing others through our drive to 'liberate' Nature.\" Longing for Connection and Wholeness In the context of fragmented forests, cultural rifts, and social conflicts, these women expressed a longing for connection and wholeness. Maureen voices the sentiment of many when she says, 220 \"I would like to see Clayoquot Sound not be any more fragmented than it already is. I'd like to see a much closer relationship among the people in Tofino, as well as among the people in Tofino and the native communities of Clayoquot Sound.\" In expressing their concerns about the fragmentation of the forests of Clayoquot Sound, many women insisted on connecting local concerns to global concerns about the state of the world's forests. Seeing the Sound as one part of a greater whole, A m y explains, \"Unless you take Clayoquot Sound as a part of the entire planet then I don't think it means that much ... I don't think we can do anything without thinking what it's going to do for everybody as a whole and for the planet as a whole.\" In the context of this global understanding, these women emphasized the need to stop the fragmentation, protect intact ecosystems, and restore ecological integrity. Explaining her own front line activism, Jan comments, \"To have hope and to live on this earth, I have to be on the path of healing it and protecting it.\" Healing, protecting, and restoring were words that women often used to describe their activism. Women also spoke of the importance of connecting people to nonhuman nature. Lorna advocates for wilderness experiences and education as \"a very powerful way to influence people.\" Explaining how these experiences have influenced her own life, she says, \"That was the way I got so involved in this issue.\" Speaking of the importance of nature experiences for youth, Claudette emphasizes the importance of bonding with nonhuman nature. A s she puts it, without these bonds, \"when it comes to getting destroyed they don't see any compelling reason to ... help save it.\" In expressing their concerns about cultural rifts and growing social conflicts, many women voiced the discomfort and frustration they feel l iving in, and trying to address issues of sustainability in the context of, fragmented communities. As Valerie puts it, \"We're 221 fighting against people right now instead of... putting that kind of energy into developing the alternatives.\" In the context of social fragmentation, women longed to reduce the rift with First Nations, to heal relations within Tofino and between Tofino and other communities, and to bridge the gaps between themselves and industry workers and their families. Julie, for instance, has been \"quite involved with First Nations\" for a number of years, both personally and as liaison for the Friends, and longs to see \"non-natives and First Nations people l iving in harmony with each other.\" When she moved to town several years ago, Claudette revived Tofino's Fun Fair. Explaining her motivation for doing so, she says, \" A l l I wanted to do was introduce some of the pro-industry people to the pro-environment people in a non-confrontational way.\" Jan voices the sentiment of many women when she says, \"I really would rather be putting more energy into building community ties and bridging communication gaps.\" For her, volunteering at the local women's transition society provides such an opportunity. Noting the presence of women on both sides of the conflict, she explains, \"I'm considering working with them ... to try to bridge some gaps.\" In the context of ecological and social fragmentation and conflicting responsibilities, many women shared stories of their own struggles with feelings of fragmentation and disconnection. For these women, personal healing, spiritual practice, and balanced lives have been essential in helping them to heal and connect more fully with themselves, to open to the earth and others, and to maintain a sense of self in the context of external and often conflicting demands. Norleen speaks of the importance of personal healing. 222 \"I can't heal the planet or reach out and heal something out there i f I'm not healing within, because I'll be dysfunctional somewhere along the line. ... Somewhere, something w i l l give because I'm not being whole inside.\" Seeing her \"personal growth work\" as \"essential\" to her activism, Fiona explains, \"I come out feeling more whole and more like I have something to contribute to the world.\" Julie spends \"time with the spirit world every day\" and says, \"There's a connection there that revitalizes me and helps me get through this very despairing time.\" Lorna emphasizes the importance of finding a balance between her activism and caring for her self and others in her life. A s she puts it, \"I have to have balance in my own life in order that I can be effective for a long, long time.\" Reflections. These women's longing for connection and wholeness resonate with ecocentric yearnings for wholeness and \"right relationships\" (Cheney 1987; Devall & Sessions 1985; LaChapelle 1988; Plumwood 1993). Feeling connected to the land and people of Clayoquot Sound, and experiencing the growing fragmentation of both, women shared, to various degrees, both their longings and their strategies for moving towards ecological, social, and personal wholeness. In doing so, they locate these longings for wholeness in the context of a complex web of social and ecological relationships that shape their felt experiences of connection and fragmentation. Unlike the ideal \"ecological s e l f engaged in relations of care for earth others (Plumwood 1993, 154), the self in this research struggles for wholeness in the context of fragmenting ecological and social relationships and 223 in the context of struggles (environmental, feminist, labour, First Nations) that are not necessarily unified. In this context, the research findings raise questions about the adequacy of a private ethics of care as a guide to action. While a private ethics of care is important in cultivating and maintaining non-instrumental relations with earth others, what kind of responses are called for in the context of growing social and ecological fragmentation and conflicting interests? A s these women suggest, there is the need for responses that move us towards ecological, social, and personal wholeness rather than fragmentation. A s the following chapters suggest, responses capable of restoring wholeness must adequately deal with the underlying sources of fragmentation. Although women framed their central concern as that of ecological and social fragmentation, they identified three major sources of this fragmentation: unsustainable livelihoods and lifestyles; failed processes; and destructive ways of being. These three themes are explored in the following chapters. 224 C H A P T E R 7 F R O M UNSUSTAINABLE L I V E L I H O O D S AND L I F E S T Y L E S T O LIVING G E N T L Y O N T H E P L A N E T Women's Stories: Personal Reflections Finding a Way to Stay In listening to women's stories of how they came to settle in Tofino, it became clear to me that, for most, the longing to stay came first, the search for ways to do so followed. In many ways, these women voiced the same sentiment: I fell in love with the place and did what I could to stay. Barbara and her husband arrived in the early 1970's to take temporary jobs and never left. A s she puts it, \"When our jobs ended we felt so strongly about this area that we did whatever jobs we could to stay here and moved ten times in three years.\" A s her comment reveals, making a living and finding housing have been central challenges for those who long to stay. Many women spoke of the shortage of secure, adequate, and affordable housing in Tofino. Some now own their own homes, but others have found themselves engaged in what is known as the \"Tofino shuffle\"\u00E2\u0080\u0094the shift from one temporary home to 225 another as places f i l l with and empty of tourists and absentee landlords. Jan has lived in Tofino for five years and describes the situation. \"The housing is really tight here. This cabin I'm in, I've been here two years, and previous to that I was in, I think, twelve different places in the three years before that. A n d so it's challenging to stay put here.\" Women also spoke of their efforts to find or create ways to earn a living so that they could stay in the region. Although more than half of the women had university degrees, and all but two had some post-secondary education, few had found livelihoods closely related to previous training and experience. Joan has a degree in social work but as she puts it, \"I sort of had to create my own forms of employment here.\" Over twenty-five years of doing \"lots of different things,\" her livelihood has shifted from fishing to bed and breakfast. She places her changing livelihood in the context of a regional economic shift from fishing to tourism \"that has been a real trend ... in the last ten years.\" As several women commented, tourism has been an increasingly important source of livelihood for many women in Tofino. More than half of the women interviewed earned part or all of their income from tourism. A t the time of these interviews, women's livelihoods and work included: gardening services, art retail, bed and breakfasts, small motel, bakery, organic food store, daycare worker, infant development worker, librarian, full-time mother and homemaker, herbalist, retired teacher, journalist, student, physiotherapist, teacher's aide, environmentalist, and what one woman describes as \"bits and pieces.\" Women's strategies for making a l iving differed. Several women had started small businesses. Maureen arrived as a tourist twenty years ago \"looking for a bakery ... and there 226 wasn't one.\" Dissatisfied with being a social worker, and looking for a way to move to Tofino, she says, \"I thought, I could come back and build a bakery here i f I wanted to. A n d I did!\" Other women depended on finding paid work. Estella tells of the long series of jobs that she has held over her twenty-two years in Tofino. \"I worked at the herring plant... at a shrimp plant... briefly at a sea urchin processing plant and then ... at the post office part time. ... As time progressed I did some work up at the school ... and then I started working at the daycare ... and then I got this job [as an infant development worker] ... I had lots of little jobs.\" For the most part, women described livelihoods that were diverse, shifting, complex and modest. A diversity of livelihoods, both over time and at any one moment was not uncommon. Some women spoke of combining several sources of income, and sometimes barter, to meet their livelihood needs. Catherine describes the \"bits and pieces\" that help to sustain her. \"I work a bit here and ... I work a little bit at [the organic food store] and I . . . drive a whale watching boat sometimes ... make candles, all kinds of little things, do a little bit of cleaning work.\" Doing these \"bits and pieces,\" she earns, and manages to live on, about $5,000 a year, but as she says, \"It's difficult. It's a struggle all the time.\" Several women shared her struggle to get by on low wages and part-time jobs. Other women spoke of having \"enough\" to meet their needs, lifestyle expectations, and responsibilities. Julie describes herself as someone who lives \"a full rich life\" on $4,000 a year. A s she puts it, \"I just have scaled it right down to a more gentle way of l iving.\" What was clear from these women's livelihood stories was that they didn't move to Tofino expecting to earn a lot of money, but what they did earn wasn't always enough. 227 Reflections. Women's stories of trying to find ways to stay put in Tofino suggest that attachment to place can play a significant role in shaping livelihood choices. A s their own choices suggest, when we begin from a sense of connection to place, and a longing to stay in place, we begin to search for the livelihood possibilities that exist within the community and/or region. If bioregionalists urge us to 'find a place and stay there'(Andruss et al. 1990; Plant and Plant 1990; Sale 1985), these women's stories reveal two of the challenges of doing so: finding adequate, secure, and affordable housing; and finding livelihoods that provide \"enough\" to meet our needs. In meeting these challenges, these women's livelihood strategies suggest that making a living 'in place' requires a willingness to be flexible and creative, an openness to working with the possibilities that exist in the region, and a willingness to accept the lower earnings that these livelihoods might offer. Earning a Living and Doing Work\u00E2\u0080\u0094The Tensions In sharing their livelihood stories, several women spoke of the tensions between earning a l iving and doing necessary and meaningful work. What became evident from their stories is that the two are not always synonymous. Whether or not they had children, many women spoke of the tensions between unpaid 'motherwork' and earning an income. Describing her decision to be a \"stay-at-home\" mother as \"the most important thing I could see to do,\" Karen comments, \" M y contribution was parenting children and hopefully putting 228 out into the world people who would make a difference.\" She is able to stay at home and do this work while her husband earns the income, but admits that not all women have this choice. A s she puts it, \"There are lots of situations where ... they absolutely can't make it without two incomes or there's a single parent.\" Several working mothers spoke of appreciating livelihoods that enabled them to balance their unpaid motherwork with earning a l iving. Joan speaks of how her shift from fishing to running a bed and breakfast suited her needs as a single parent \"because I could be home a lot.\" With a degree in science, Barbara enjoyed the work she found in the local daycare, partly \"because I could bring my children with me.\" Women without children varied in their responses to the absence of motherwork. Several spoke of the impossibility of supporting children on their low wages. Claudette struggles with the limitations of her $18,000 income. A s she puts it, \"It's uncomfortable because I cannot acquire security ... and I can't have children until I feel secure.\" Others spoke of having the freedom to make livelihood and lifestyle choices that would be difficult i f they had children. In moving to Tofino, Fiona was able to choose a livelihood and lifestyle more in line with her values. In speaking of the $12,000 she earns from her organic food store, she says, \"That's plenty for me, but I have no children and I only have my own mouth to feed.\" O f the seventeen women who reported their income, eleven had extremely modest incomes ranging from $4,000 to $18,000 and no children to support. O f the three women earning $25,000 to $30,000, two had grown children and the third was a single parent. O f the three women reporting family incomes of $50,000 to $75,000, all had children and male partners who were professionals or tradespersons. 229 Another struggle that became evident in women's livelihood stories was the tension between earning a living and doing work that they considered to be necessary, meaningful and life-enhancing. Several women commented on the lack of real alternatives to destructive but high-income jobs. Catherine struggles to get by on $5,000 a year, but she finds it \"very difficult\" to do the kind of work that would earn her more. A s she puts it, \"If I start to do work that feels like it's in any way harming the earth, I stop being able to do i t . . . and there's not a lot of work like that... that pays very much.\" Other women distinguished between their 'real work' and the work that they have to do to earn money. Cori is a journalist and fi lm maker whose passion lies in documenting \"the struggle that women are going through on a global level to achieve equality.\" A s she comments, \"I don't usually get paid for the work that I really like doing so I also work as a waitress to make my money.\" For several women, the work they have passion for is their environmental work. Seeing \"the need for far more people to be working full time on the environment,\" Lorna laments the fact that this work is underpaid and undervalued. A s she puts it, \"Most people who work for the environment are ... l iving a very simple, poverty level kind of life in order to do that work and ... not getting credit for it!\" Some women, however, have managed to find ways to earn a modest l iving doing meaningful work. At the time of these interviews, Jan was \"growing ... herbs and gardening\" and doing paid and unpaid work with the Friends of Clayoquot Sound. Commenting on the meaning that this work brings to her life, she says, \"I ... feel alive when I do that.\" Fiona sees her organic food store as both a \"positive economic action\" and a form of activism. A s she puts it, 230 \"People get to make the choice to eat organic food. I can educate people about organics. ... It created a space for people to get involved ... A n d I hope to turn it into a cooperative.\" Whether or not they got paid, women affirmed the value of their 'real work.' Describing her environmental work as \"morally purposeful,\" Maryjka comments, \"You're doing something to hopefully make the world a better place ... as opposed to just contributing to [its] destruction.\" Reflections. In speaking of the tensions between earning a living and doing work that is necessary, meaningful, and life-enhancing, these women offer an expanded concept of work that challenges the notion that only 'paid' work is productive and valuable; and raise questions about what and whose work matters. On the one hand, the tensions between unpaid motherwork and earning an adequate living locate their efforts to earn a l iving in the context of patriarchal economic structures which devalue, and render economically insignificant, the bulk of the work that women do in the home and in the workplace (Brandt 1995; Leghorn & Parker 1981; Mellor 1992; Mies 1986; Walby 1989; Waring 1988). On the other hand, the tensions between doing necessary, meaningful, and life-enhancing work and earning a l iving locate their livelihood struggles in the context of a western model of 'maldevelopment' which devalues, and renders as economically insignificant, \"all work that does not produce profits and capital\" (Shiva 1988, 4). A s some ecofeminists point out, this 'maldevelopment' devalues the bulk of the work that nurtures, sustains, protects, and 231 enhances life on this planet, and renders economically insignificant the productive work of women, nonhuman nature, and land-based cultures. In challenging the destructiveness of this model, ecofeminists call for a 'life-enhancing' economy oriented towards the 'production of life' (Mies & Shiva 1993; Shiva 1988; Waring 1988). Consistent with these ecofeminist sentiments, these women's struggles suggest that a 'life-enhancing' economy would value both 'life-enhancing' work and the doers of that work, and would enable women, as well as men, to make a l iving 'in place.' Protecting the Basis of Life and Livelihoods In sharing stories of felt connection to the forests of Clayoquot Sound, many women spoke of the vital role that healthy forests play in sustaining human and nonhuman life on this planet. In sharing their own search for ways to make a living, many also spoke of healthy forests as the basis for their own and countless other livelihoods in the region. In challenging destructive forest practices, then, it was not surprising to hear many of these women explain their activism in terms of protecting the ecological basis of life and livelihoods. They were particularly concerned about the devastating effects of clearcutting in the forests of Clayoquot Sound, but also expressed concern about unsustainable rates of cut, inadequate and excessive roading, and the steady fragmentation of intact ecosystems. In the context of conflicts over forest practices in the Sound, Lorna voices her frustration with those who continue to defend practices that are \"not environmentally sound.\" A s she puts it, \"I don't feel that they understand what's at stake\u00E2\u0080\u0094the very life-supporting functions that we 232 depend on as well as our economic base~the forests themselves!\" Fishing, tourism, and forestry were livelihoods that these women identified as threatened by destructive forest practices. Some spoke of the devastating effects of poor logging practices on the fisheries in general, and aboriginal fisheries in particular. Joan, for instance, recalls how, during her fishing days, she heard many stories from \"the old native people\" about how logging was destroying their traditional fisheries. Many spoke of threats to the tourist industry, arguing that clearcutting is destroying the ecological integrity that sustains their livelihoods and draws people to the region. A s co-owners of a small motel, Jean and Deb explain their position, \"We try to tell people that... the people who come in here for a wilderness experience are not going to get it so they wi l l no longer come and therefore everyone who is in business w i l l suffer in the long run.\" Many insisted that the forest industry itself is threatened. A s Valerie puts it, \"They're not gonna have logging jobs for very long i f they don't sustain the forest.\" Others spoke of the threatened livelihoods of today's youth and future generations. Voic ing her concerns about the future impacts of today's unsustainable practices, Joan comments, \"I do care about the kind of future that my daughter might have here in Tofino ... [or] her children or my grandchildren.\" With all these livelihoods threatened, it is little wonder that these women were critical of forest conflicts that have focused narrowly on protecting jobs in the forest industry while ignoring the livelihoods that are being destroyed and threatened in the process. Call ing for sustainable livelihoods for all, not short-term jobs for a few, they challenged the framing of these conflicts as one of \"jobs versus environment.\" Merry speaks for many of these women when she insists, \"One of the greatest fallacies is this so-called 'trade-off 233 between environment and jobs. Y o u bugger up the environment, then there's gonna be no jobs for anybody!\" In reframing the \"jobs versus environment\" debate to one of \"jobs and the environment,\" many women acknowledged the need to address the livelihood concerns of industry workers and their families. Merry, a long-time labour activist, is concerned about the forests of Clayoquot Sound, but as she puts it, \"I recognize that to say, 'Right! We're gonna save it!' is far too simplistic ... There has to be ways found for people to make a l iving.\" A s she and others insisted, however, these 'ways to make a living' cannot be at the expense of the forests and the livelihoods of others. In expressing their concerns about the ecological integrity of Clayoquot Sound, some women expressed discomfort or ambivalence about logging in Clayoquot Sound. Most, however, called for a transition to what Valerie calls \"a gentler forestry\" that respects ecological limits. As Maureen explains, \"I've never been someone who said that there can't be any more logging in Clayoquot Sound. ... Where the logging occurs and how it occurs has been of more concern to me.\" The outcome of this \"gentler forestry,\" argues Claudette, is \"job security for infinity ... so not only you are employed, but your unemployed fisherman friend is employed and your kids w i l l have employment as well!\" In sharing their concerns about sustainability in the Sound, these women did not restrict their comments to the forest industry. Overharvesting in the fisheries, uncontrolled tourism, and ecologically insensitive development in Tofino were other disturbing trends. 234 Lorna voices the sentiment of many of the women when she says, \"I think we have to do a much better job in order to have sustainability in all our industries.\" Women were particularly vocal about tourist development in Tofino and the Sound. For some women, making a l iving from tourism was what had first sparked their environmental concerns and activism. In explaining her initial involvement, Joan, a bed and breakfast owner, comments, \"If we didn't do something [tourism] would just be impacted by logging.\" But as she and others pointed out, the huge influx of tourists, and uncontrolled and ecologically insensitive tourist developments, are creating their own environmental concerns and fast destroying the ecological base on which tourism depends. As Karen explains, tourism is \"destroying what it is ... that brings people here.\" Often proposed as an alternative to forest jobs, many women argued that tourism can be, as Jan puts it, \"as devastating i f it's not restricted.\" A s with forestry, few women called for a complete end to tourism. Instead they called for controls on both the amount and nature of tourist development in the Sound and in Tofino. A s Deb emphasizes, \"Let's face it, this world is finite!\" Admitting that everyone needs to make a l iving, these women insisted that there are both ecological limits to how we do so and many opportunities for creative livelihoods within these limits. Joan voices a sentiment that many women expressed when she says, \"There's so many opportunities and potentials ... all kinds of wonderful things we could do ... i f they aren't compromised by losing the kind of environment we have here. In expressing their visions for Tofino and Clayoquot Sound, these women called for sustainable livelihoods that would enable everyone in the region to live, as Norleen puts it, \"gently on the planet.\" As Estella describes it, l iving gently on the planet means that we have to \"do things economically in a way that shows a lot of care and 235 respect for the land that we live on.\" Putting these visions and the creative livelihoods that people are already doing in perspective, Julie comments, \"The people here could be very creative in their livelihoods here, and a lot of us are l iving that way ... However, the cutting is going on as we speak. The trees are falling right now!\" Her point is that protecting the ecological basis of these livelihoods is essential to the realization of the creative potentials that exist in the region. Reflections. In acknowledging healthy ecosystems as the basis of life and livelihoods, and in affirming the possibilities for sustainable livelihoods that exist in the region, these women challenge the ecology-economy dualism embedded in western economic thought. This dualism hyperseparates the economy from the ecological contexts within which economic activities take place, reduces complex ecosystems to mere instruments of economic growth and material wealth, and perpetuates the illusion of an economy unconstrained by ecological considerations (Daly & Cobb 1989; Rees 1989, 1995a, 1995b; Wackernagel & Rees 1996). In challenging destructive forest practices, and in calling for a 'gentler forestry,' these women locate the forest industry firmly in its ecological context and insist that there are real ecological limits to industry activities. A t the same time, their concerns about unsustainable practices in other industries, including tourism, remind us that the forest industry is but one expression of an unsustainable economic model that most of us in western societies participate in to some degree. Finally, in calling for sustainable 236 livelihoods for all , not short-term jobs for a few, these women reveal the injustice of a jobs versus environment' debate which focuses narrowly on protecting industry jobs and ignores the livelihoods of countless others in the region; and introduce the concept of an 'economic justice' that takes seriously the livelihoods of present and future generations and the wel l -being of ecosystems. In doing so, they extend moral consideration to both human and nonhuman nature. Their stories of concern suggest that an economic justice that seeks sustainable livelihoods for all is an important complement to the private ethic of care and responsibility expressed by these women in the previous chapter. Raising Concerns About Social Sustainability In expressing concerns about unsustainable livelihoods in Clayoquot Sound, most women did not stop at the ecological impacts of these activities. Instead, they went on to express concern about the social impacts of unsustainable industries. With a particular focus on the forest industry and tourism, they argued that the nature of development in Tofino and the Sound is undermining not only ecological sustainability but social sustainability and community stability. In raising concerns about the social impact of ecologically destructive forest practices, L . J . speaks for many women when she says, \"You have this interaction between what happens out in the logging areas and what happens in your community.\" She and others spoke of what happens to communities when the ecological base of the economy is destroyed. A s Joan puts it, \"I've seen what happens to communities when resources collapse.\" Pointing to the devastating social impacts of collapsing resources on aboriginal 237 communities in the region and many resource communities in British Columbia, she exclaims, \"I don't want Tofino to be like that!\" Voic ing the same concerns, Jan comments, \"We all know that with the collapse of the main industry comes depression and crime and abuse.\" O f particular concern to her, and several other women, was the escalating rate of violence towards women that comes with rising social and economic stress. Commenting on what she has observed, she explains, \"I know that men are under stress here and I know that their wives are under stress.\" Several women commented on the particular ways in which forest industry workers and their families are being impacted by real and threatened lay-offs. A s Deb explains, \"Women are fearful for their children ... that they'll go hungry cause their husband's out of work. The men are fearful that they're gonna be out of work and it's devastating to be out of work. Y o u lose your self-confidence.\" A n d as several women commented, unsustainable forest practices are at the root of social conflicts and growing community fragmentation over whether, where, and how logging should take place in Clayoquot Sound. These women also expressed concern about the social impacts of uncontrolled tourism. Almost every woman interviewed spoke emphatically of the social stresses and loss of community associated with the flood of tourists into their small town each year. Describing tourism as \"a mixed blessing,\" Barbara explains, \"It does something to the soul of the town. ... The summer growth is really kind of hard to take. There is a special feeling to small towns of going downtown and seeing people that you know, and community gatherings,... and that doesn't seem to be happening so much any more, especially in the summer.\" 238 Wanting to see \"some restrictions around tourism,\" Jan comments, \"This is a village of a thousand people and on any given day in the summer there'll be three thousand tourists, so it's a bit much!\" Speaking of the pressures to accommodate the needs of these growing numbers of tourists, Lorna comments on the irony of environmental struggles to save the Sound. \"It's kind of a funny situation in that the more of Clayoquot Sound that we preserve ... the more tourists we'll have come here and the more Tofino itself may be impacted!\" Coupled with this influx of tourists has been a flood of developments that have taxed the resources of the local Council , strained local infrastructures, and sparked controversy over the nature of development in Tofino. In this context, L . J . worries about what tourism is doing to community stability. With rising taxes and property values and an expanding industry that depends on a low-waged, transient, and seasonal workforce, she wonders whether local people w i l l be able to stay. A s she puts it, \"Most of the people who came here came prepared to take less income, and because the cost of living was lower you could do it. But it's not the case any more.\" In dealing with resource conflicts and environmental concerns in the region, several women expressed concern that issues of social sustainability are being ignored. L . J . expresses her frustration with narrow government and community responses. \"The provincial government's whole focus has seemed to be on the trees and on the fish ... but not on the people. So what has happened in this community is, everybody hops from one crisis to the next but all resource base engineered crises. What's happening in terms of human stability in the community is largely ignored.\" 239 Jan admits that social concerns are seldom addressed by environmentalists. A s she explains, \"Most of them understand ... and see the importance of it but aren't pulled to work that way. A n d others have no time for the social aspects.\" A n d several women felt that social concerns were most often ignored by men. A s L . J . puts it, \"I think men have a great deal of difficulty understanding what this social cultural sustainability is all about and I don't think they give it the same weight as they give logging and fishing and mining.\" L ike many of these women, she insists that ecological and social well-being are \"completely interdependent\" and need to be addressed as a whole. As she puts it, \"It's all got to happen together!\" Pointing to what happens when we fail to deal with social and ecological concerns together, Valerie remarks, \" Y o u know what you get? Y o u get national parks!\" As she explains, \"That's when you say, 'People have two choices and those choices are to either completely stay away from nature or to completely destroy nature.' A n d that's the attitude that we have right now. ... A n d what we have to get into is ... we have human beings l iving within the land and it's al l nature!\" Incorporating notions of social and ecological well-being, Valerie calls for an economy that \"sustains a decent society without destroying the beauty and integrity of the land that it exists in.\" Consistent with concerns about social as well as ecological sustainability, these women's visions for their community and the region often included a range of activities designed to meet community needs and realize community potential. Affordable housing, ecologically sound development, community gardens, local food production, cottage industries, artistic endeavours, jobs and training for youth, services and 240 programs the elderly, children's camps and childcare, a women's centre, conflict mediation, and counselling were some of the possibilities woven into their visions. Almost always, these economic possibilities were part of a larger vision that combined a number of options designed to enhance both social and ecological sustainability. Claudette, for example, believes her own vision to be \"a viable alternative vision\" and shares some of the possibilities she sees: nature tourism, selective logging, affordable and low-impact housing, educational and research facilities, artist resorts, and children's camps. A s she exclaims, \"There's so many beautiful visions here people haven't even considered!\" Reflections. In expressing concern about the social impacts of unsustainable forest practices and uncontrolled tourism, and in offering economic visions that enhance both social and ecological well-being, these women make links between economic, ecological, and social concerns and include humans, as well as nonhuman nature, in the context within which economic activities take place. In doing so, they challenge the human-'nature' dualism of western economic thought and suggest that there are real social, as well as ecological, limits to economic activities. The effect of including both human and nonhuman nature in the domain of concern is to challenge us to search for economic solutions that contribute to the well-being of both. I f women's observations and experiences are any indication, however, meeting this challenge wi l l not be easy. Women's comments about the marginalization of social sustainability by government, community, environmentalists, and men reveal both the 241 depth to which this human-nature dualism is embedded and the gendered dimension nature of this resistance. Their concerns about the particular ways in which aboriginal communities, women, and industry workers have been affected by unsustainable practices suggest that there are underlying power relations (including those of race, gender, and class) that mediate how social impacts are felt. Challenging these inequitable social relations is essential i f we are to move towards an economy in which all of nature, both human and nonhuman, male and female, and in all our differences, can flourish. Challenging Corporate Control In listening to women's stories of felt connections and concerns, it became very clear to me that large corporations operating in Clayoquot Sound had no place in their stories. Giv ing voice to this sentiment, Norleen exclaims, \"Get the corporations out!\" Underlying this sentiment was the conviction that these corporations are a significant source of current problems and a major impediment to change. The relentless pursuit of profits, their dominating influence over the economy, and corporate control of the forests were central to women's criticisms. Pointing to destructive forest practices, excessive harvesting, technological displacement of workers, and the mass export of raw timber from the region, these women expressed concern about what Jan calls \"the gross injustice of the multinational corporations getting stinking rich while they pillage our backyard.\" She and other women complained that these corporations care more about making a profit than they do about the forests, the workers, or their communities. A s Estella puts it, \"That's basically all that this 242 forest really means to them is money!\" Several women spoke of the high costs of shipping huge numbers of. unprocessed logs out of the region in pursuit of the bottom-line. What you get, argues Claudette, is \"the minimal amount of employment with the maximum amount of environmental degradation.\" Unwil l ing to let the government off the hook, however, she says, \"Ultimately it's the responsibility of our provincial government to establish guidelines to keep the forest companies environmentally in line and to secure a sustainable future for all of us.\" In advocating for tougher forest standards, and in supporting international campaigns to influence demand for company products, these women explained their efforts to hold corporations responsible and affect them where they feel it most. A s Lorna puts it, \"Unti l the companies are affected monetarily, there wi l l be no really fundamental changes.\" Critical and distrustful of large corporations operating in the forests of Clayoquot Sound, these women spoke of the dominating influence that corporations have exercised over the region. Many spoke of how short-term corporate interests have dominated public processes designed to address issues of long-term sustainability in the Sound. Others spoke of how companies have used the threat of layoffs to gain increased access to the forests. The irony, as many women pointed out, is that few of these workers live in the region. A s Norleen points out, \"Most of the jobs in Tofino aren't from logging.\" With a single focus on preserving forest jobs, the livelihoods of countless others living in the region have continued to be ignored. Nevertheless, many women recognized the vulnerability of those who depend on the forest industry for their livelihood. A s several women pointed out, dependency and fear are to be expected when any one industry dominates the economy and few economic 243 alternatives are available. Comparing the vulnerability of neighbouring forest-dependent communities to the economic base of Tofino, Valerie remarks, \"Here, we have diversified the economy to the point where people feel a bit more confident.\" Not all of these women agreed. Several expressed concern that a rapidly growing tourist industry is quickly becoming the dominant industry in the Sound and, in the process, marginalizing other livelihoods and diminishing other possibilities. A s L . J . puts it, \"Everybody is so oriented towards tourism that it seems to be the only way they can think of to make a l iving right now.\" In challenging the practices and economic domination of large forest companies, these women called for the transition to a 'gentler forestry' and a diversity of sustainable livelihoods. In calling for a 'gentler forestry,' these women argued for ecologically sound forest practices, a diversity of activities that would make creative, efficient, and effective use of a wide range of forest resources, and a focus on meeting local needs and keeping benefits in the region. In Jan's vision, this \"gentler forestry\" includes, \"... smaller, locally owned and managed businesses and locally regulated businesses and secondary and tertiary manufacturing so that any tree that falls passes through a lot of hands and creates a lot of pay cheques before it leaves Clayoquot Sound.\" Ecological preservation, restoration, research, and wilderness education were seen as complementary to this \"gentler forestry.\" A s these women pointed out, however, a 'gentler forestry' is only one of many livelihoods possible from healthy forests and oceans. In calling for a diversity of economic options, many women envisioned a balance of sustainable livelihoods from tourism, fishing, and forestry. Lorna offers such a vision. 244 \" M y vision would be that we have a diversified economy based on forestry, on fishing, as well as tourism. ... I think that this area holds incredible potential for scientific research, and combined with our tourism industry and our fishing industry, and with some small scale sustainable harvesting, I think that would be the ideal combination.\" In offering these visions of sustainability, however, several women remarked on how difficult it is to create alternatives when access to the forests is effectively controlled by large corporations who care little for the region and whose activities impact negatively on livelihoods in tourism and fisheries. Valerie voices the sentiment of many women when she comments, \"Right now, large industry has such a strangle-hold on the resources that it's almost impossible to think about moving to the new economy or whatever you call it. ... Corporate control is the big stumbling block.\" For any real change to happen, she continues, \"We're going to have to really deal with tenure ... issues of who owns the land, who has rights on the land, and what you do with the land.\" While celebrating the progress that First Nations communities have been making towards regaining control over some of their traditional territories, several women also emphasized the need for non-aboriginal communities to reclaim control from corporations. A s Norleen puts it, \"Give control back to the communities!\" A diversity of community-based and sustainable livelihoods were central to these women's visions. Some women used the term 'bioregional' to describe their vision. For Cori , bioregional means \"a shift towards more localized economic, political, and social structures\" and making the best use of \"the resources that you have in your area.\" Expanding on this vision, Valerie emphasizes the importance of \"more reliance on the local\" in terms of what the region's ecosystems and the community 245 have to offer. L ike many women, she calls for community-based economic solutions. Favouring initiatives that are \"light on the land, cooperatively managed, [and that] benefit a lot of people,\" she explains, \"I think that every community should turn to themselves and look at the skills within the community and be more reliant on those skills.\" Reflections. In challenging corporate domination and control, these women locate unsustainable forest practices in the context of inequitable economic structures which place effective control of the forests in the hands of a few large corporations and enable them to pursue profits with little regard for the long term social, economic, and ecological well-being of the region. In combining the call for a 'gentler forestry' and a diversity of sustainable livelihoods with the call for community control, they provide us with an alternative vision for the region. A s they point out, however, realizing this vision requires that we challenge those economic structures that protect the status quo and enable unsustainable economic activities to continue. Challenging unsustainable lifestyles In identifying the sources of ecological fragmentation in Clayoquot Sound, these women didn't stop at unsustainable industries and corporate domination. Woven throughout their stories were concerns about highly materialistic lifestyles promoted and pursued within 246 their own western culture. A s many of these women argued, the pursuit of ever-increasing levels of material consumption in the context of real ecological limits is both unsustainable and inequitable. Valerie describes herself as \"a middle-class activist woman\" who has \"chosen very actively\" not to pursue the consumer lifestyle of her own class. A s she explains, \"I think that's the destruction of the world\u00E2\u0080\u0094the ability to consume and the feeling that it's our right to consume because we have the available income.\" Putting her critique in a global context, Jan expands on this sentiment. \"We're all basically living beyond our means ... certainly the overdeveloped nations are l iving well beyond what the earth can sustain and draining the less-developed nations. A n d that just can't continue.\" Advocating for lifestyles that \"the earth can sustain,\" she concludes, \"That's what's gonna save the world is when we all reduce our lifestyles drastically.\" While virtually all women shared this view, many spoke of the difficulty of doing so when all the messages in society encourage us to consume, and tie our identity to our ability to consume. A s Fiona puts it, \"They're constantly telling you to buy things and there's a life style presented that you're supposed to be able to achieve or you're no good.\" The result, Julie explains, is that people get locked into working at jobs \"in order to live the kind of life that they think that they're supposed to be living.\" Many of these women pointed to the high wages and standard of l iving of forest industry workers as a prime example of unsustainable lifestyles. As they argued, both company profits and these lifestyles have been gained at the expense of the forests of Clayoquot Sound and the long-term livelihoods of others in the region. Some women argued 247 that high wages keep these workers and their families hooked to a destructive industry and unsustainable levels of consumption. Estella's husband used to work in the industry, and she speaks of the vicious cycle of consumption and debt that finally made him quit. \" Y o u become entrenched in the system where you're buying things ... and then you have to keep the job because you've already spent the money that they've promised you.\" Although he left, others continue to vigorously defend both the industry and the high wages and standard of l iving that their jobs provide. For many women, the reluctance of industry workers to consider economic options that might be more ecologically sustainable but less materially rewarding, is a major barrier to change. Believing that many creative possibilities exist for quality but less consumer-oriented lifestyles, Fiona voices the sentiment of many of the women when she re-frames the 'jobs versus environment' debate. A s she puts it, \"It's not job loss, it's lifestyle loss.\" But Merry, \"an old trade unionist,\" insists that the situation isn't so simple. In the context of union struggles and culturally dominant lifestyles, she comments, \"I know exactly what kind of attitudes and ideas are prevalent. The workers do the work ... the workers deserve a big chunk of whatever profit is being made out of that, and to live the kind of lifestyle that is held up to us as being where it's at.\" A s she explains, in the context of forest conflicts, workers find themselves caught in the middle. \"The boss attacks him from one end and the environmentalists from the other.\" In challenging materialistic lifestyles, women did not restrict their comments to the forest industry. Not innocent bystanders in their own culture, several women spoke of their own personal struggles with consumption. Cori speaks of the contradictions between her 248 environmental stance and her own consumer habits. A s she puts it, \"I say all these things like 'stop logging and stop this and that' but I'm part of the consumer culture.\" A s she continues, \"People have to stop consuming as much as they are. And even though I think that most people are coming to recognize that, because the earth is falling apart, they recognize it but they don't do it. ... Same with me. I recognize it and I don't do it either! I try to remember as much as possible but there's times when I forget.\" Several women spoke of their personal efforts to make the transition to more gentle lifestyles. Norleen speaks of the lifestyle change she made when she moved to Tofino. Describing herself as \"someone who is certainly trying to go towards living much more gently on the planet and unlearning the need to have everything convenient and fast and now,\" she admits that making these changes has not been easy. As she puts it, \"It is much harder work to do it a gentler way.\" Fiona, on the other hand, didn't find it difficult to leave the consumer lifestyle behind. Describing herself as \"quite a consumerist\" before she moved to Tofino, she explains, \"I'd always had this admiration for people like I am now ... people who could appreciate the planet, people who were active, people who did good stuff for the world and didn't just go around consuming.\" Noting the \"really dramatic shift\" she's made in her life she concludes, \"I'm real proud of the way I've changed.\" In sharing their own efforts to move towards gentle lifestyles, these women spoke of being more conscientious in their purchasing, of working to reduce their needs and wants, and of improving what Jan calls \"self-sustainability\" by finding creative and non-monetary ways to meet their needs. But several women also spoke of an inner process that made the 249 transition possible. Norleen speaks of the inner journey that took her to a place where her lifestyle is more consistent with her values and beliefs. Advocating the same for others, she explains, \"I think for each person to journey within and just somehow let go of all the layers that say that they have to drive a certain kind of car, maintain a certain kind of lifestyle or whatever it is that drives this corporate machine. Because I think that all people would like to be happy and thoroughly enjoy their life and ... know they're [not] in some way ki l l ing or destroying. A n d i f the option were there ...\" Her final sentence is telling. She and other women admitted the difficulty of moving towards more gentle lifestyles when the options are not easily available. In this context, several women spoke of the importance of self-caring, understanding, and forgiveness. A s Merry suggests, \"Balance what you want to do because you know it's right with what is kind of necessary to do because that's the situation you're in.\" In the context of her own struggles with consumption, Cori comments, \" Y o u make the choices that you make in your own personal life and do the best you can with what you have.\" Reflections. In identifying materialistic lifestyles as a major source of ecological degradation, these women challenge the overconsumption of their own western culture. While critics of western economic models insist that there are real ecological limits to material growth and consumption (Daly & Cobb 1989; Rees 1995a, 1995b; Wackernagel & Rees 1996), these women provide evidence that there are members of western culture who agree. In calling for less consumer-oriented lifestyles, and in sharing their own efforts to 250 adopt such lifestyles, they emphasize the importance of learning to live within biophysical limits. Their own struggles with consumption, however, remind us that the move to sustainable lifestyles w i l l not be easy. In sharing their inner struggles to resist the messages of the dominant culture and to care for the self in the process, they suggest that inner healing can be an important source of resistance. In the context of a growth-oriented economy, a consumer culture, and inequitable power relations, I would argue that we need to be careful not to blame each other for livelihoods and lifestyles shaped by the options available, the dominant messages that link identity and self-worth to our ability to consume, and by the consumptive patterns of the privileged few. The challenge, I would argue, is to increase the numbers of people wil l ing to make the transition to gentle lifestyles and to create sustainable economic options that w i l l enable them to do so. Exposing the Gender-Blindness of Forest Conflicts In challenging the destructive practices of the forest industry, several women spoke of their growing awareness of the gendered nature of forest conflicts in Clayoquot Sound. With large numbers of women actively protesting destructive forest practices, many women commented on the fact that it has been primarily men (and the occasional woman) defending both a male-dominated industry and men's jobs. As Valerie Langer and Jan Bate (1993, 82) put it \"The jobs ... so guarded by governments, unions, and industry in this debate are men's jobs.\" Valerie comments on the hidden sexism in this debate, 251 \"We keep on hearing that we have to log the forests for jobs and I'm completely figured out of that equation. ... The fact that the government is right now spending [millions] to protect an ever-decreasing number of loggers jobs is astounding to me! It's an incredible inequality! You'd never hear them campaigning for women's jobs like that! ... So I'd say that's probably one of the most obvious forms of sexism in this whole argument in that the government is so concerned about men's jobs and very little concerned with women's lives and jobs.\" Wi th their 'lives and jobs' ignored, many women have found themselves economically dependent on men. Explaining the participation of \"the occasional woman\" on the other side of the blockades in terms of this dependency, Valerie comments, \"They weren't fighting for their jobs, they were fighting for their husbands' jobs. A n d it's this dependence on men which makes the women afraid that they'll end up poor. Everything that gets developed here is men's work and then the women feel dependent on the men because there's no alternative for them.\" The women I interviewed were dependent on neither the industry nor men's industry jobs. Wi th many women in Tofino earning a living from tourism, it was not surprising to find some of them actively protesting unsustainable forest practices that threaten both the forests and their own livelihoods. A s one of these women, Maureen comments on the large numbers of women challenging the forest industry and defending the ecological base of tourism. A s she exclaims, \"The male-dominated resource extractive industries and the female-dominated service industry, which the tourism industry is, have come head to head here!\" In challenging the gender-blindness of the 'jobs versus environment' debate in Clayoquot Sound, several women commented that what is being defended is not just men's jobs, but men's high wages. While several women have found ways to make a living within tourism, these jobs are being scoffed at as alternatives to men's jobs in the forest industry. Exposing 252 the gendered nature of this resistance, Maureen interprets the standard response that she often hears from defenders of the industry, \"It's not one of those tourist jobs that I can't support my family on. It's 'meaningful labour'... meaning at men's wages not at women's wages.\" A s someone who has created a livelihood for herself and others through her own small business, she recounts how the wages she pays her workers, were \"the standing joke at one of the last tables\" where she sat as Tofino's representative. A s she tells it, the union rep at this table \"would pull his, 'Don't talk to me until you're paying your [workers] twenty-five bucks an hour.'\" She agrees that \"we all have to have a living wage,\" but as she puts it, \"How many people in the world can earn twenty-five dollars an hour and have the economy survive at all?\" L . J . supports the call for \"a basic living income\" but wonders whether the jobs being created within tourism wi l l provide that. In the context of the escalating cost of l iving in Tofino, she explains, \"The government is pushing service industry as the future, and the service industry is largely minimum wage, is largely female and nobody is going to be able to live in this community on that kind of an income.\" Explaining that \"the big money\" in tourism is being made by the owners, not the employees, she speaks of the difficulties of living on tourist jobs that are often part-time, seasonal, and low-paying. A s she puts it, \"Unless that workforce already has a home here, or it's a second income in a family, or a second income for that person ... it's not going to give you much more than a bedroom ... certainly not enough to raise a family on.\" In speaking with women about the male-dominated nature of resource industries in general, and the forest industry in particular, I was curious to know whether there had been 253 any efforts to address women's economic marginalization. The answer was, \"No.\" A s a member of a Tofino District committee whose goal is \"to end up with some kind of equitable economy in the community,\" L . J . admits that they \"certainly haven't addressed\" the issue of women's livelihoods. But in reflecting on the committee's efforts to look beyond low-paid, seasonal tourist jobs for alternatives, she comments, \"We are maybe a little more aware of women's economic problems than I made it sound.\" In considering the alternatives, however, it was interesting to me that not one woman suggested that the solution is simply to get more women working in the forest industry. A s Valerie puts it, \"The problem is that we could say, 'Women can work in the forestry industry too!' Right? ... But . . . we need to change the logging industry. We don't just need to get women into the logging industry.\" In the context of concerns about destructive practices, corporate control, and unsustainable lifestyles, neither she nor any other women considered the forest industry to be a viable economic option for any one. Instead, these women called for the transition to a 'gentler forestry' and a diversity of sustainable livelihoods. In responding to my question about where women would fit in this vision of sustainability, Valerie voices the sentiment that many of these women expressed when she comments, \"Where do women fit? They fit everywhere! I don't see that there's a place that they don't fit into the new economy!\" Reflections. In challenging the gender blindness of the jobs versus environment' debate, these women's stories of economic marginalization provide evidence of patriarchal economic 254 structures that privilege a male-dominated industry and men's high-paying jobs over women's lives and livelihoods. A s feminists point out, besides assigning women the bulk of unpaid domestic labour, a gendered division of labour assigns to women the bulk of low paid, and often part-time, jobs in the formal economy. With their work devalued and underpaid, the majority of women are rendered either economically dependent on men or poor (Brandt 1995; Leghorn & Parker 1981; Mies 1986; Walby 1989). The sharp contrast between a male-dominated, high-waged forest industry and a female-dominated, low-waged tourist industry provide a concrete example of this gendered division of labour. As their stories suggest, the search for sustainable livelihoods must, of necessity, take seriously the livelihood needs of women, as well as men, so that all of nature\u00E2\u0080\u0094human and nonhuman, male and female\u00E2\u0080\u0094can thrive. In reflecting on the call for a ' living wage' for all, I would argue that worker resistance to low paying tourist jobs, and women's own struggles to earn enough, suggest that a ' l iving wage' that enables both men and women to sustain themselves and those dependent on them (e.g. children, elderly, sick) lies somewhere between the two sides of the dualistic split between men's high wages and women's low wages. Challenging the Forest Industry from the Margins In sharing their livelihood stories, and in explaining the reasons behind the large numbers of women actively challenging the forest industry, several women suggested that women's economic marginalization makes many women more wil l ing to challenge a destructive industry and unsustainable lifestyles. On the margins of a male-dominated industry and a 255 gender-blind 'jobs versus environment' debate, many of these women have found their own livelihood needs ignored and sometimes directly threatened by poor forest practices. In sharing their struggles to create livelihoods for themselves on the margins of the forest industry, they explained their activism in terms of protecting not only their own livelihoods, but the ecological basis of life and livelihoods in the region. A s several women argued, being on the economic margins of the forest industry means that few women have a vested interest in protecting it. A s they explain, because most women have been excluded from the male-dominated forest industry, and few have benefited directly or indirectly from it, they are less tied to it and therefore more wil l ing to speak out and challenge it. As Cori puts it in pointing to the large numbers of women challenging the status quo in Clayoquot Sound, \"I think it's safe to say that most women around here do not have a stake in logging the shit out of Clayoquot Sound.\" Critical of materialistic lifestyles, several women suggested that, because many women are used to earning and doing with less, and few have directly enjoyed the high wages of the forest industry, it may be easier for them to accept the move to gentler livelihoods and lifestyles that the earth can sustain. Valerie argues that men and women have different economic expectations to begin with. A s she puts it \"We don't expect that we're going to be in the extremely high paying jobs.\" Pointing to the lower expectations of many women, and to the fact that many women are used to \"having a little less,\" she explains, \"It's not as hard for women to accept the fact that they might have a lower standard of l iving, unless they're attached to a man who's gonna give them that standard of l iving through the higher paying jobs, unless they've gotten used to that.\" 256 Jan provides an example from her own life. The most she has ever earned is \"twelve bucks an hour with tips\" from waitressing. B l o w n away by industry demands for twenty-six dollars an hour, and insisting that \"we all have to reduce our lifestyles drastically,\" she comments, \"I've never made that kind of money. I've never needed that kind of money. Y o u know, I don't have a family but I think even i f I had a family I wouldn't need that kind of money.\" Marginalized from a male-dominated forest industry, many of the women interviewed have pursued economic alternatives that have given them some degree of economic independence from both the industry and men. L . J . suggests that there is a link between women's economic independence and their willingness to speak out. A s she puts it, \"Perhaps as the economic situation has improved a little bit for women that they're not so dependent on men, they're now starting to voice their disagreements or their concerns more than would have been possible when they were more economically dependent.\" Explaining why there are so many women actively involved in protecting the forests of Clayoquot Sound, Valerie emphatically argues, \"We've got an alternative!\" A s one of the many women creating livelihoods for themselves in Tofino she insists, \"What's important to a lot of women is the economic independence. A n d we don't have to make a mil l ion bucks to feel that way.\" A s she explains, \"I know that a lot of the women here aspire to have enough money to be able to have their house, feed their kids and maybe have a little extra ... I think there are a lot of women here who don't have the aspiration to make a mil l ion bucks, but they certainly do have the aspiration to be economically independent. And that's very strong.\" Pointing to the large numbers of Tofino women operating small businesses geared to tourism and earning a l iving outside of the forest industry, she comments, 257 \"Why is it that we have women here who are comfortable, can feel independent and also are very active in the environmental movement? It's because we don't feel like we are beholden to any male economy at this point.\" A s several women commented, there are already women creating positive economic options for themselves and others in the community. Using her own organic food store as an example, Fiona comments, \"Many women I know here are into alternative types of employment, or into doing just what they like doing and somehow we've all made work\u00E2\u0080\u0094we've made it into a money-making endeavour.\" Lorna voices her admiration for what these women have created in Tofino. A s she puts it, \"I like the places that they have created in terms of the businesses, the atmosphere that they have created. They're caring places. ... The things they have done and the reasons they've done them for, I think, are honourable and they've done them for the right reasons\u00E2\u0080\u0094for people who care about others and who care about the environment. Yeah, I really like what's been created here by women!\" A n d Valerie speaks of the contributions that women are already making to the emerging ecoforestry movement. Pointing out that \"there are a number of women who are involved in the trade already\" she cautions, \"We have to stop talking about 'the boys in the woods!'\" Reflections. In suggesting that economic marginalization can make women more wi l l ing to challenge an unsustainable forest industry and materialistic lifestyles and more open to gentler livelihoods and lifestyles, and in acknowledging the positive economic options that many women are already creating, these women suggest that the economic margins can be a place of not only oppression but of resistance and hope. In doing so, they offer an 258 oppression-based argument, grounded in women's lived economic realities, that suggests that economically marginalized women have both critical perspectives and creative solutions to offer in the search for sustainable livelihoods. For these particular women, these critical and creative contributions arise at least partially from their own efforts to create livelihoods for themselves on the economic margins, and from their experiences of having their livelihoods ignored within a gender-blind 'jobs versus environment' debate and threatened by the destructive practices of a male-dominated forest industry. Their stories suggest that having some degree of economic independence from both men and destructive industries makes it easier to voice and act on these critical and creative sensibilities. In reflecting on these women's stories, however, I would argue that not all women contribute the same degree of critical and creative 'otherness.' Although all women may be marginalized to some degree by patriarchal economic structures, some women are more marginalized than others, and some are as complicit as men in defending and benefitting from destructive economic activities. Given women's differing social and economic locations, Eckersley (1992, 67) warns against \"over-identifying with, and hence accepting uncritically, the perspective of women\" and argues, instead, for the critical incorporation of the insights that women and other oppressed peoples have to offer. The challenge, I would argue, is to acknowledge and critically incorporate the economic insights of women and other marginalized peoples, and to support women and other marginalized peoples in their efforts to resist destructive economic practices and to create gentle livelihoods and lifestyles on the margins of a destructive economy. 259 C H A P T E R 8 F R O M F A I L E D PROCESSES T O C O M M U N I T Y - B A S E D DECISION-MAKING Women's Stories: Personal Reflections Responding to Failed Processes In explaining their activism, these women often spoke of their frustration and disillusionment with government processes that have failed to stop the fragmentation of the forests of Clayoquot Sound or to resolve deepening conflicts over logging in the region. Commenting on the myriad land use processes that have taken place over the years, Norleen voices the sentiment of all the women interviewed when she says, \"They've all failed!\" For many, this conclusion, and their eventual participation in public protests, came after a series of failed attempts to make their concerns heard and taken seriously. A common thread ran through their stories: I became concerned, I tried to express my concerns through established channels, my concerns were not heard, I had no choice but to protest. Fiona tells of her loss of faith in public processes, 260 \"I came into the whole thing rather naive. ... I can remember sitting at meetings and saying things like, 'Wel l , have you written them? Have you talked to so and so? Surely they'll do something i f they know the truth. A n d then once I got into the [Friends] office myself and saw the stacks of papers and correspondence that had been going on since the Meares Island days ten years before, and the dilemma that the community was still in, ... my eyes opened. I just saw that it was pretty futile a lot of times to complain. I wasn't being heard, and no one I knew was being heard.\" One of thirty-five people arrested during the 1988 Sulphur Pass blockade, she explains, \"This was the only remaining avenue to get my opinion expressed in a formal manner. I had learned that [in] public review processes people are not paid attention to.\" Norleen was arrested and went to ja i l for her part in the 1992 blockade at Clayoquot A r m . Frustrated by the ineffectiveness of letter writing, she voices the sentiment that led to her eventual participation in direct action, \"Decisions are being made and I can't influence them!\" Lack of genuine input into decisions being made about the forests of Clayoquot Sound was of central concern to these women. As Valerie explains, up until the 1988 Sulphur Pass blockades, there had been no real public process in place. \"We had these five year management working plans we got to comment on and over the next five years they got to change everything in the plan ... and without any consultation. A n d we said, 'We want to know everything that's going on. They're public forests!' So that got the public input process working.\" But the public processes that eventually got put in place didn't change the kinds of decisions being made. Call ing them \"talk and log\" processes, women shared stories of their growing distrust of processes that have sapped their time and energies while keeping real decision-making in the hands of government and industry. A s Norleen puts it, \"It seems those government processes were set up to keep the public busy giving their input while they talked 261 and logged.\" A s one of those who has put time and energy into many of these public processes, Lorna observes, \"I think a lot of people are burned out... very jaded, very cynical and pessimistic about what's happening.\" She shares her own growing distrust of these processes, \"I've sat for thousands of hours in meetings about this stuff. ... I've heard promises ... that things w i l l change, things wi l l be done differently, the cut w i l l be lower, that practices w i l l be better ... I've heard those for the last five or six years now and I really don't think that anything much has changed. So I am a little bit cynical about trying to make change through land use planning processes.\" From the first protests in the early eighties to the mass protests of 1993, these women spoke of their activism as a response to land use decisions that have reflected what Cori calls \"seemingly hopeless questions of government and industry collusion.\" As they tell it, decisions being made about the forests of Clayoquot Sound have served to protect the interests of the forest industry and to perpetuate problems in the region. Joan speaks of events that led to the first blockades in 1984. When aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities voiced their opposition to the logging of Meares Island, the government established a planning team to try and resolve the conflict. With community members joining M a c M i l l a n Bloedel ( M & B ) to develop a logging plan for Meares Island, she describes both the initial optimism and the sense of betrayal. \"We were all quite hopeful. We thought, maybe this planning process with M & B and different people would work. A n d it didn't in the end because M & B just said, 'Wel l , we're gonna log.' ... A n d that's when the first blockade happened.\" ' A s Maureen explains, the government had sided with the company in its decision \"to log most of Meares Island.\" Explaining events leading up to the mass protests of 1993, many 262 women recounted the years of failed processes around sustainable development in Clayoquot Sound, the B C government's February 1993 purchase of roughly $50 mil l ion in M a c M i l l a n Bloedel shares, and the government decision, a month later, to allow logging in roughly two-thirds of the Sound, as examples of a government-industry relationship too close for comfort. Crit icizing the Apr i l 1993 land use decision that ignited what was to become one of the largest c iv i l disobedience protests in Canadian history, Maureen argues, \"The environmental community had not bought into it and a large number of people in Tofino hadn't bought into it and the native people had not bought into it. ... I mean the absolute stupidity is just mind-boggling!\" Explaining her participation in the ensuing protests, A m y comments, \"I felt that they really let us down and so I was protesting the fact that the government hadn't listened to the people.\" Shut out of failed processes, she and countless others have had little recourse but to find other ways to make their concerns heard and to stop the destruction of the forests. Reflections. In explaining their activism as a response to decision-making processes that have failed to take their concerns seriously, these women expose the conflict generating nature of land use processes, and provide concrete evidence to support growing concerns about the lack of effective public participation in forest-related decisions in British Columbia ( F R C 1991, 105). A s critics of forest planning in British Columbia point out, both the \"feeling of not being listened to\" (Vance 1990, 2) and growing environmental protests are symptomatic of decision-making processes that have effectively shut out the public and 263 privileged the interests of a single industry--the forest industry (Hammond 1991, 1993; N i x o n 1993; Vance 1990). Calling for \"a rediscovery of our basic democratic rights,\" Bob N i x o n (1993, 25) argues, \"The fundamental problem-the reason why forest disputes grow larger with each passing day\u00E2\u0080\u0094is the absence of democratically fair public participation processes.\" Challenging Industry-Dominated Tables Although these women told of many failed processes, they were particularly critical of two government-led processes: the 1989-90 Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force (CSSDTF) ; and the 1991-92 Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Strategy Steering Committee (CSSDSSC) . In looking at who sat at these tables, these women argued that they were dominated by companies, government ministries, unions, and outside communities committed to protecting the interests of the forest industry. Charging that the 1989-90 Task Force (CSSDTF) was \"too overloaded with non-Clayoquot Sound interests,\" L . J . comments, \"When you have committees that are weighted with international monetary interests and provincial government monetary interests and outside communities' vested interests, what's left of your little community where the resource base is located is going to be out-voted every time because nobody's going to care what happens out here.\" Besides the marginalization of Tofino representatives at these two tables, women pointed to the inadequate representation of First Nations voices, non-industry interests, and 264 environmental concerns. Maureen represented the District of Tofino at the 1991-92 Steering Committee (CSSDSSC) and makes this observation, \"In the past five years, all the processes ... have not had adequate native participation ... so I haven't had a sense that we've had the benefit of their history and sense of place and knowledge at these processes.\" Despite the significance of tourism to the area, Joan speaks of the struggles to get tourism recognized as a legitimate participant. Explaining the exclusion of tourism from the 1989-90 Task Force (CSSDTF) , she comments, \"It wasn't an industry that was considered a player.\" Lorna was indirectly involved in the Task Force through Tofino's Steering Committee for Sustainable Development (SCSD), which advised Tofino's representatives at the table. She explains how, with no environmental representative on the Task Force, \"we in Tofino basically had to represent the environment.\" Put in the position of having to speak for both Tofino and the environment, she speaks of how the process drained the Committee. A s she puts it, \"Our little group ended up sort of dissolving because of burn out. ... We were very, very exhausted.\" But, as she points out, the larger table also dissolved. Supposedly working to consensus on a sustainable development plan for the region, the 1989-90 Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force \"failed to reach a consensus.\" A s she explains, \"We got caught up in short-term logging issues.\" In looking at what was talked about at these tables, these women voiced their frustration with tables preoccupied with short-term logging issues to the exclusion of other concerns and at the expense of the social and ecological well-being of the region. Although both processes were charged to work to consensus on the development of a sustainable 265 development strategy for Clayoquot Sound, these women argued that corporate and government officials made a mockery of both the process and intent. A s Fiona puts it, \"They co-opted the word 'sustainable' and they co-opted the word 'environment' and they turned it all into this language that they knew they could use to succeed in their agenda\u00E2\u0080\u0094which as to keep business as usual happening.\" A s the tourism representative to the second process, the 1991-92 Steering Committee ( C S S D S S C ) , Joan had the opportunity to bring the concerns of the tourist industry to the table. But as she recounts, with a table loaded in favour of the forest industry, it was difficult to get the issues she brought acknowledged and discussed. A s she describes it, \" Y o u had all the various ministries sitting at the table and all the industries and unions and regional district and other communities that were impacted. Wel l , I mean, we couldn't get tourism and just other issues on the table and recognized, let alone values of other interests that they would have considered all the more 'airy-fairy' and all the other terms they had for us.\" Describing her efforts to participate as \"an uphill battle all the way,\" she speaks of the disrespect and close-mindedness she experienced. \"There wasn't a lot of respect and there wasn't a lot of willingness to listen and to try and look at things from a different perspective. There wasn't a lot of openness and communication. A n d it made it very frustrating because you really couldn't feel like you were getting anything really accomplished or having really thoughtful interesting discussions.\" Environmentalists also had a seat at the Steering Committee (CSSDSSC) table but, like the tourism, felt that they could never get their concerns about long-term sustainability in the Sound taken seriously. Maryjka comments on the Committee's pre-occupation with short-term logging issues, \"They could never talk about anything in the process because the companies were always screaming, 'We're about to lay off workers this week! We have to talk about 266 giving us our immediate fibre supply!' So you have to always get bogged down with that... and they never did consider hardly anything larger.\" Eventually, environmentalists walked away from the table complaining that this was just another 'talk and log' process. A s part of the group that made this \"very difficult\" decision, Fiona explains, \"It was so glaringly obvious that this was a failure of a process to begin with and you can get sucked into those things for years and you can spend tons of money and energy and just end up ... burned out, disillusioned, frustrated.\" Like the 1989-90 Task Force, this second process, the Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Strategy Steering Committee, failed to reach consensus. Years of processes had failed to produce a sustainable development strategy for Clayoquot Sound. Reflecting on the failure of these tables, Claudette voices the frustration that many women expressed when she complains, \"Instead of moving forward to the viable alternative vision and community values and social values and women's justice and water rights and native rights, fisheries, aquaculture, all these other bundle of things ... the whole conversation ... is put on hold for the one industry\u00E2\u0080\u0094logging.\" In challenging the exclusiveness and narrowness of these top-down processes, many women called for inclusive and broad-based community processes. A s Joan puts it, \"If they really are going to work, you've got to have that kind of involvement. Otherwise decisions come from the top down. People still feel they have no input, no impact, and that everything is kind of out of their control.\" A n d as a member of Council , Lorna supports a community-based approach to long-term planning. A s she explains, 267 \"It would be wonderful to have the whole community participate, but I would feel comfortable i f there was a broad spectrum of the community\u00E2\u0080\u0094Council members and citizens in the community\u00E2\u0080\u0094meeting to discuss those issues.\" Inclusive, diverse, and balanced, were words that women often used to describe both representation at these tables and the range of issues discussed. Valerie suggests that there are two fundamental principles that should guide community processes, \"the principles of equality, and decision-making which involved all those people who want to be involved in the decisions.\" Reflections. In challenging top-down and industry-dominated tables, these women expose the injustice of land use processes dominated by and organized around the short-term economic interests of the forest industry, and closed to the social, economic, and ecological concerns of countless others. In doing so, they reveal the economistic nature of these processes, and their inherent bias against non-economic concerns, ethical considerations, and ecologically informed notions of the economy. Commenting on the economistic bias of top-down land use planning, Janis Birkeland (1993b, 21, 25) argues that \"planning and business decision-making have merged\" so that there is no public decision-making process capable of adequately dealing with the ethical issues underlying environmental problems. A s these women's stories reveal, this economistic bias is structured into processes by virtue of who is at the table and what gets talked about. With corporate voices, economic interests, and the logic of western economic models dominating these tables, decisions continue to be made in 268 favour of short-term economic interests and at the expense of long-term sustainability. In calling for inclusive and broad-based community processes, these women introduce the concept of a 'political justice' that is open to a diversity of perspectives and participants. To the extent that these processes are open to those who bring ethical concerns to the table, the principle of political justice is an important complement to the private ethic of care and responsibility expressed by these women in Chapter 6. As their stories suggest, moving towards these open and responsive democratic processes involves struggles over both who sits at the table and what gets talked about at tables where environmental decisions get made. Challenging \"Efficient\" Decision-Making In looking at how decisions have been made about the nature of development in the Sound and Tofino, several women argued that pressures to make quick and 'efficient' decisions have served to protect the status quo and to perpetuate ecological and social fragmentation. Insisting that the concept of efficiency \"has been horrific for our world,\" Valerie explains, \"Efficiency is the sense that you take the least amount of time to come to a decision to do something. The concept that long, considered decisions which take a long time to arrive at aren't 'efficient' has meant that the kinds of decisions that get made in this world are not necessarily good.\" For these women, the various 'talk and log' processes are prime examples of 'efficient' but not 'good' decision-making. Pressured to make quick decisions in response to company demands for timber, these tables have had little time to address concerns about long-term sustainability 269 in the region. A s several women argued, with little time to consider other options or the input of others, 'efficient' processes keep the status quo well entrenched. A s Valerie puts it, 'efficient' decisions serve the interests of the powerful few and are inherently biased against genuine participation. \"When power is given to a few people, there doesn't seem to be the need to make long and considered collective or consultative decisions. In fact... it's antithetical to involve others in the decision-making process. So, for somebody that wants to maintain their power, efficiency is having the decision pretty well already set in your head and finding the best way to implement what you want to do. That's efficient!\" Having participated in and observed the workings of various 'efficient' processes, L . J . comments, \" A lot of times, when you go into any kind of committee, you have the feeling decisions have already been made, that you're wasting your time ... A n d often, I feel that the committees are just window-dressing, sop to the public.\" Some women argued that efficient decision-making breeds a crisis mentality that keeps everyone reacting to short-term issues at the expense of long-term sustainability. While many women pointed to the 'talk and log' processes in speaking of this concern, they also spoke of similar pressures at the local level. A s a member of Council , Lorna expresses her frustration with the reactive and short-term focus of Council decisions. Pointing to the myriad of government land use processes on which Council has been asked to comment, and to the flood of development applications for Tofino, she argues that there is little time to do the careful long-term planning that w i l l safeguard social and ecological sustainability in the Sound and in town. A s she comments, \"We just go from meeting to meeting, and sometimes we talk a little bit about the future needs, but very seldom. And I don't think that's adequate.\" 270 L.J. agrees. Describing herself as someone who tries to \"keep an eye on planning committee actions and development proposals for the community,\" she observes, \"One of Council's biggest problems is finding any time to be proactive. They're so busy reacting to everything that's going on that it's very hard to find any time to plan ahead.\" Several women argued that efficient decision-making processes have served to fuel, rather than heal, divisions and hard feelings in their communities. Maureen points out that what's valued in these processes is not the quality of decisions but the ability to make decisions. A s she explains, this \"ethic of decisiveness\" tends to favour mechanisms, such as vote-taking, that w i l l produce decisions quickly. \"There's this group out there that says, 'No! Take a vote! ... Make a decision! Doesn't matter whether you've talked about it enough to even know what the issue is, whether you need any more information. It's this ethic that says that making a decision, right or wrong, at least I've made a decision, I've taken that stance and I've put my mark down! It's that value we have that making a decision is good! Period! ... Being indecisive is bad, is weak.\" In light of this ethic, she continues, slower processes such as \"consensus decision-making [are] regarded as indecisive and weak.\" A s a member of Tofino Council for a number of years, Lorna argues that this 'ethic of decisiveness' forces people to take sides on divisive issues rather than work towards a decision that everyone can live with. She speaks of a history of win-lose decisions that have fuelled conflicts and hard feelings. \"What has traditionally happened in this town is that Council has come down on one side or the other. ... A n d so one side goes away victorious and one side goes away mad as hell. A n d you can't resolve conflict when you're dealing with that. You've got to resolve the conflict before the decision is made so that everyone doesn't go away at loggerheads for the rest of their lives.\" 271 Furthermore, she argues that making decisions by taking a vote make it difficult for minority concerns to be heard and considered. Speaking of how hard it is to have concerns about long-term sustainability taken seriously at Council tables, she comments, \"We don't have the balance o f power so we often get out-voted.\" With concerns marginalized and conflicts unresolved, decisions continue to be made in what L . J . calls a \"confrontational manner.\" A s she puts it, \"We seem to keep going from crisis to crisis ... from community conflict to community conflict.\" In challenging efficient decisions that keep the status quo well-entrenched, these women called for considered and fair decisions about the nature of development in Clayoquot Sound and Tofino. A s Valerie puts it, \"Decisions that are considered, which take a long time and which have the input of everybody, which don't benefit the few, are the decisions which end up having the greatest merit.\" Supporting attempts \"to find a fair solution that everyone can feel comfortable with,\" Maureen argues, \"If you do find such a solution, you then have people wil l ing to follow through with it, to do what they need to do to make sure the decision w i l l work.\" For many of these women, these fair and considered decisions are best arrived at through consensus decision-making. As Barbara describes it, the power of consensus decision-making is that \"it makes sure that everyone's opinion is listened to. It's less likely that the people with the loudest voices w i l l get a disproportionate weight put on their opinions.\" Norleen voices her faith in such a process. \"If a process were set up with women and men, where the framework [for] real consensus ... was laid out and agreed upon before hand, then I think, 'Yeah, we can 272 resolve this. There is a solution.' It's probably not going to be one that I fully like ... but I can give a little in order to see a more rounded holistic approach to it.\" In the context of such a process, Fiona voices her conviction that people w i l l make the kinds of decisions that are best for the region and the planet. A s she puts it, \"I have faith in people ... i f they're accountable, i f it's ... real grassroots type of decision-making. I really have faith that the human being can do what's best for itself and for other creatures and the planet. I don't think we have a death wish. I think we have a real strong survival wish.\" Reflections. In challenging decision-making processes organized around the principle of'efficiency,' these women reveal ways of making decisions that are inherently biased towards the status quo, closed to genuine participation, and incapable of dealing with long-term concerns, ethical issues, and conflict. A s feminist and ecofeminist critics of planning point out, behind the notion of'efficiency' is a rational decision-making model which assumes that issues can be resolved by the application of scientific, economic, and/or technical knowledge, tools, and techniques. The effect is to deny the underlying ethical and political nature of many of these decisions, to dismiss as irrelevant all that falls outside a narrow rational framework, and to produce decisions that maintain the status quo (Birkeland 1991, 1993a, 1993b; MacGregor 1995; Mi l roy 1991; Plumwood 1993, 1995; Sandercock & Forsyth 1992). In her ecofeminist critique of land use planning, Janis Birkeland (1991, 77) argues that these 'efficient' processes provide no forum for dealing with long-term planning issues or with the ethical issues underlying environmental conflicts. What these women add 273 to her critique is the importance of having enough time to produce the kinds of considered and fair decisions necessary for long-term social, economic, and ecological sustainability in the region. In favouring mechanisms, such as consensus decision-making, these women emphasize the importance of having both the forum and the time to produce fair and considered decisions. This prescription implies that coming to decisions that w i l l reduce social and ecological fragmentation in the region wi l l involve struggles over how decisions get made. A s their stories suggest, there is the need for decision-making processes where long-term and ethical concerns can be considered and addressed adequately, and where conflicts can be resolved in a constructive manner. On the Margins of Male-Dominated Tables In challenging industry-dominated and 'efficient' land use processes, many women pointed out that these tables have been dominated by men. A s Lorna observes, \"We have had women at these various tables. ... They have definitely been the minority and for the most part what they have said ... has been ignored.\" Being in the minority, and being ignored, were common themes in the stories of those few women who had sat at these tables. Joan speaks of the 1991-92 C S S D S Steering Committee where she sat as tourism rep, \"The table was very male-dominated. A l l the industry [and] representatives from all the different ministries were all male, [the] union ... was all male.\" Describing it as \"kind of like the old boys club,\" she comments, \"They'd all kind of go and have beers afterwards and stuff, but we 274 were not included.\" Excluded from the \"club,\" she speaks of the disrespect with which her comments were received, \"Sometimes they'd say, ' A h we don't want to hear this tourism bullshit any more'... this is the union guys. They were quite graphic and literal and would always rant and rave about... 'Let's not talk about all these motherhood issues.' It was very frustrating and it felt quite aggressive often too. They would just quite quickly put you down or cut you off or say, 'These things are ridiculous'.\" A s Tofino representative at the same table, Maureen comments, \"It was all these men sitting around and there were some meetings [where] I might be the only woman and there'd be fifteen guys around the table.\" Like Joan, she speaks of the \"glazed eyes\" with which her remarks were received, of the union rep who would \"get up in disgust from the table\" when she spoke, and of the way the men would \"gaze off into space and wait t i l l . . . Joan or I had finished and then come back again because some man was talking.\" With few women sitting at these tables, most of the women interviewed found themselves observing from the sidelines. Norleen was one of these women. Al lowed to witness the 1991-92 C S S D S Steering Committee meetings, she describes how she and others would do '\"red tape actions' where we went and stood with our posters and had red tape on our mouth, trying to bring some awareness to the fact that... it's 'talk and log' and the public isn't being heard.\" During these actions she had a chance to observe what women at the table were saying and how they were being treated. \"The chair of the meeting would change his tone of voice when he spoke to Maureen. ... He had a very condescending tone of voice to Maureen. Every issue or concern that she would bring up he would be like, 'Oh, well , yes. Thanks for bringing that up. There, there, Maureen, yeah, sure.' and then just go on to something else.\" 275 Voic ing her admiration for Maureen's \"strength and her own personal power,\" she recounts one meeting that stands out in her mind. \"I remember the chair ... asking for specific maps and scientific details from the M a c B l o guy ... something else from the Interfor rep, something about maps and stuff. A n d he looked over at Maureen and said, 'Oh, i f you can bring some treats from the bakery, that'd be great.' Wel l , I just thought, I wonder i f they ask her to make the coffee! ... I just couldn't believe it!\" But government land use processes were not the only focus of these women's criticisms of male-dominated decision-making. Several expressed concern about the predominance of men within provincial and First Nations negotiations over land use in the region. A s a liaison between the Friends and First Nations communities, Julie observes that it was \"maybe a couple of women but mostly men sitting at a table negotiating.\" During her time as member of Council , Maureen speaks of her personal discomfort \"dealing with the larger political bodies out there as a woman.\" A s she explains, \"It's hard to phrase it, but women politicians who are out there are a very tough lot. . . They're not walking around in business suits. They're walking around very sharply dressed ... looking 'female' but being in a male world\u00E2\u0080\u0094a very tough, no nonsense, 'can't pull the wool over my eyes' sort of role.\" Lorna is a member of the largely male local Council and voices some discomfort with how her comments are being received. A s she explains, \"Recently I have wondered i f some of the other male councillors are not taking me seriously. Just the manner in which they consider my suggestions or recommendations.\" A n d Valerie comments on the male-dominated justice system that she and others have faced. A s she puts it, \"We go through court and it's always a male judge and it's always male lawyers. We end up consistently facing the patriarchy!\" 276 In noting the disrespect shown to both women and the concerns they bring to male-dominated tables, several women wondered at whether they were being dismissed 'as women' or because of the concerns they raised. Some women suggested that it is often women who raise issues that challenge the status quo. Sharing this view and some of the challenges that she would bring to the table, Cori comments, \"I don't know i f those are necessarily women's issues, but as a woman I would bring them.\" L . J . speaks of feeling dismissed in committees where she has raised social concerns. \"I've certainly felt discriminated against but I couldn't decide whether it was because I was a woman or whether it was because I was talking social issues which do not largely make sense to men. ... I think the whole concept of social sustainability is very foreign to most men.\" Jan finds it hard to know whether she is dismissed because she is a woman or because of the environmental concerns she raises. A s she explains, \"It's hard to differentiate between as a woman and as an environmentalist because most of the environmentalists around here are women.\" Joan admits that much of what she and other Tofino women brought to the 1991-92 C S S D S Steering Committee table challenged the status quo. Noting their exclusion from \"the old boys club,\" she explains, \"We were definitely not in their camp politically either. They were quite opposed to most things we had to say at the table.\" A s she continues, \"They had a hard time, I think, dealing with women in negotiating, especially around tourism. It might have been different i f I was a logging representative. They probably would have listened more, although they didn't have any, you know. I don't think they had any women that they can sort of put in those positions.\" L . J . agrees that what women have brought to male-dominated tables have been ignored, but she challenges the characterization of these tables as \"male-dominated.\" Suggesting that a better term is \"power-dominated,\" she explains, \"I don't think it would have mattered very 277 much i f it were a male or a female in those positions. They had the power.\" In response, however, Fiona adds, \"But statistics show that i f there's power there's more likely a male.\" A s several women insisted, it is most often men, particularly elite men, who defend the status quo. In challenging industry- and male-dominated tables these women emphasized the importance of having processes open to women and the concerns that they would bring to the table. In supporting the call for inclusive and broad-based community processes, Joan comments, \"For these processes to really do what they always are promising they're going to do, they have to involve people. And they should be aware that there's a lot of very qualified women here that could be participating.\" Several women spoke of the importance of including the countless others who have been marginalized from top-down processes. As Catherine puts it, \"I think it's very important that women and other oppressed people have a say and participate in decision-making. A n d it's also true of native people and people of colour and gay people and lesbian people. ... Those voices have to be all heard!\" Taking her lesson from the forests themselves, she argues that this diversity of voices and perspectives \"really enriches us.\" Reflections. In sharing stories of male-dominated tables and marginalized concerns, these women provide evidence of the gendered nature of public decision-making in general, 278 and of land use processes in particular. A s feminists have long pointed out, a gendered politics serves to marginalize women and what they consider worthy of public attention, from politics in general (Bock & James 1992; Pateman 1983; Phillips 1991; Walby 1989) and from planning in particular (MacGregor 1995; Mi l roy 1991; Sandercock & Forsyth 1992). The effect is to privilege a male-dominated and masculinist 'public' domain while conceptualizing both women and the feminine \"outside the conventional realm of politics\" (Milroy 1991, 9). A s these women's stories suggest, the provincial government played a role in reproducing this gendered politics by designing tables dominated by representatives from male-dominated ministries, corporations, and interest groups, and by the interests of a male-dominated forest industry. A s these women remind us, however, women are not the only ones marginalized from these processes. Their call for inclusive processes involving women and other marginalized people suggests that an appropriate response to top-down and male-dominated processes is not simply to call for more women participate in existing processes, but to struggle for equitable processes that make space for all marginalized voices and an expanded notion of what is political and relevant to the decisions at hand. Creating the Space to Speak: Introducing Feminist Process In explaining their activism, many of these women spoke of their struggles to speak and be heard within both government-led processes and the Friends of Clayoquot Sound. In response to the silencing and marginalizing of their concerns from top-down, industry- and male-dominated processes, most had joined in or supported public protests as a way to make 279 their voices heard. In response to the silencing of their voices within the Friends, some women had helped to introduce feminist process into both the organization and subsequent actions; others had benefitted from it. Valerie defines feminist process as \"cooperative decision-making processes which don't depend on a hierarchy and somebody ordering the other people around.\" Julie expands on this definition, \"For me, it's honouring everyone that attends a meeting and allowing each person a chance to speak and to speak without being interrupted ... And that... people learn that it's not okay to use ... words [such as 'mankind'] ... that are supposed to include all people but don't.\" Within the Friends, feminist process has been synonymous with consensus decision-making. Introduced around 1989-90, the intent of this feminist process was to create a space for everyone\u00E2\u0080\u0094both women and men\u00E2\u0080\u0094to speak and be heard. Fiona recalls how the idea took form. \"We were ... looking at hierarchies ... patriarchy ... women's empowerment... The directorship ended up with quite a large number of women on it and we were aware that the personal is political and we were studying consensus ... A n d we were just learning that... i f we wanna really succeed here and have a cohesive group we need to incorporate more voices in a really safe way.\" Explaining how these ideas got implemented, she comments, \"There were enough of us [women] who were directors and we just did it!\" But, she adds, \"There was really good reason for it too!\" In sharing their stories of the 'really good reasons' for introducing feminist process, several women spoke of their experiences with men who dominated meetings and left little 280 time or space for them to speak. Valerie speaks of what Friends' meetings were like before feminist process was introduced. \"At one point there were so many troubles in our meetings, and there were two men especially who would talk incessantly, interrupt continuously, always had interesting things to say but always decided that their things were more interesting than anybody else's. ... A n d I credit Bonnie with finally saying, 'I don't care i f they're good activists. I want a chance to speak and I don't want to be interrupted when I speak!'\" For Norleen, \"one of the early frustrations with getting involved in the [environmental] movement [was] male dominance, men just speaking out more in meetings and monopolizing them.\" Emphasizing the importance of \"having enough time\" to think and speak, she speaks of the silencing effect of this dominating behaviour. \"I think a lot of women are shut down because usually they're not given any time [to speak], and when they are given time they're given such short amounts of time ... For me, learning how to speak in a group of people ... it used to really scare me because I could never get my thoughts together fast enough to get them out and to be sure that they were what I really wanted to say.\" Not all the women shared this concern. Maryjka explains her own perspective, \"Quite a few of the women have issues about men controlling meetings or speaking out too much and they feel silenced or they feel interrupted or whatever, but I haven't. I've been at those same meetings and I wouldn't have said so.\" Other women pointed out that there have been women who have been just as dominating. Speaking of pre-feminist times at the Friends, Fiona comments, \"There were a couple of females who were very, very dominant, and it was just a matter of people not being able to listen to people.\" Several women spoke of how feminist process in the Friends' has positively influenced their activism. Fiona speaks of the sense of safety it provided, 281 \"I feel very safe with it. I have really low tolerance of people rambling,.of people not listening, and I would end up with just a knot in my stomach and not be able to sleep all night after most meetings until we started passing a feather, creating an agenda, taking turns facilitating.\" Julie was one of \"the people who didn't get a chance to say anything\" in earlier meetings. She tells of how, through feminist process, she gained the confidence to speak in public. \"The lovely thing about the feminist principles applied to a Friends meeting is that, in the last couple of years, I have learned how to speak in a group. And that led me to be able to speak in front of crowds. That's something I might not have ever been able to do i f I hadn't learned how to speak even in a small group.\" Norleen speaks of how feminist process helped her to grow personally and politically. From other women she learned that \"it's not okay ... for a man always to interrupt women in the conversation,\" and became \"much more comfortable\" calling men on their dominating behaviours. She also discovered, through the practice of consensus, that there are nonhierarchical ways to resolve differences and make decisions. Several women commented on the importance of feminist process to the success of the 1993 protests. A s Valerie explains, \"One of the reasons why the Peace Camp was really successful is that everybody participated [in making decisions] ... so people felt good about what they did and we worked like hell!\" Speaking of how this process contributed to broader social change, she continues, \"Twelve thousand people came through that camp and ... now have the experience of working within feminist decision-making processes.\" Despite these positive influences, not everyone has been happy with feminist process. Pointing to the gendered response to consensus decision-making in the Friends, Valerie comments, \"The women loved working in it and fewer of the men enjoyed i t . . . and I would 282 say that's probably why there are now more women working with the Friends than men.\" A s she explains, \"There are some incredible men who are working with the Friends of Clayoquot Sound and who are very good at working within consensus process. But for those who are used to having their way all the time, they couldn't stand it.\" A s Fiona explains, feminist process \"ended up alienating some very strong male voices because they found it too difficult to fit into that model.\" She expresses her regret that this happened, but as she explains, \"We were caught in a real bind because we weren't being heard and we weren't having the opportunity to speak.\" She describes the backlash that followed, \"Unfortunately we got called elitist, we got name-called real bad. There was quite a big fall out!\" The result was that \"some very powerful\" men and some women ended up leaving the organization. Some women also spoke of the backlash at the 1993 Peace Camp. A s Catherine describes it, \"Men [were] talking about how they felt discriminated against because the women were strong and feminism was ruling the camp and they didn't want the camp to run on feminist principles any longer.\" But some women admitted that feminist process didn't always work. Pointing to her own struggles to practice consensus, Norleen admits that there were times when she and others were \"still falling back on our old patterns.\" Maryjka pointed to incidents where some feminists and ecofeminists had reverted to disrespectful, dominating, and destructive behaviours. Jan pointed to one \"very poor process\" where a strong feminist member of the Friends was \"unnecessarily alienated.\" Although they were reluctant to go into the details with me, it was obvious that there had been times when the process had failed and others-including other feminists\u00E2\u0080\u0094were alienated and hurt. 283 Reflections. In sharing their stories of feminist process, these women challenge both hierarchical processes that permit a dominant few to speak while others are silenced, and 'masculinist' behaviours which enable men to monopolize the process and silence women. A s feminist and ecofeminist critics of planning point out, the silencing of women through 'masculinist' behaviours such as monopolizing the discussion is common in the public domain (Birkeland 1991; MacGregor 1995, Mi l roy 1991; Plumwood 1993, 1995; Sandercock & Forsyth 1992). These women's stories provide evidence that 'masculinist' behaviour also plays a silencing role within the environmental movement. In responding with the introduction of feminist process, they emphasize the importance of non-hierarchical processes that create the space for both women and men to speak and be heard. In sharing stories of the positive impact of feminist process on both individual women's activism and the environmental movement, they reveal its democratic and transformative potential. Although their efforts were directed towards their own organization and activism, I would argue that feminist process has much to contribute to our understanding of inclusive public decision-making processes. While the ecological forestry literature supports the call for shared decision-making (Hammond 1991, 1993; Nixon 1993), these women's stories suggest that, in the context of a male-dominated and male-defined discourse on forest issues, creating the space for both women and men to speak is an essential step in moving towards the kinds of processes where all can be heard. But their stories also suggest that introducing non-hierarchical forms of decision-making w i l l not be easy. On the one hand, stories of backlash 284 suggest that feminist process threatens the power of the dominant few, and men in particular, who are used to having the floor. On the other hand, stories of failed process suggest that we all carry with us baggage from the dominant society in which we have been raised, even as we seek to change it. Daring to Speak, Learning to Listen In sharing their struggles to voice their concerns, several women spoke of the difficulties they have speaking out in public. Explaining their silences, they offered comments such as the following: \"I'm not very good at public speaking.\" \"I'm shy to speak in public.\" \"I find [public speaking] quite intimidating!\" Cori argues that women often have difficulty speaking out, even when the space has been created for their voices. Pointing to her own efforts to create a space for women's voices in the community paper she edits, she comments, \"Even i f it's said, it's hard to act on that because of years and years of lessons in learning not to speak out.\" Asked whether she related to that personally, she responds emphatically, \"Oh yeah!\" Uncomfortable with their silences, several women spoke of their desire to gain the skills, experience, and confidence they need to be able to speak out more. Maryjka says of herself, \"I'm not a spokesperson but I'd like to ... at least become more able to speak on the issues, even though I might not feel confident enough to do it with the mainstream media.\" In explaining her reluctance to speak out publicly, Claudette comments, \"I'm just a little bit shy to be outspoken. It's something I would like to get over because I allow it to intimidate me.\" Expressing her desire to be able to speak out more, she 285 comments, \"I'd like to have a mentor or someone ... to show me and give me encouragement.\" Some women spoke of their reluctance to speak out in the midst of controversy over forest practices and development in Tofino. Fear of alienating others, fear of the consequences that visibility brings, and fear of conflict were some of the reasons that women gave for not speaking up. Merry isn't someone who is easily silenced, but as she explains, \"I didn't get anywhere near as verbal and vocal as I probably would ordinarily because I have another interest in town.\" A s \"one of the chief supporters and fundraisers\" for the local theatre, she \"felt a bit constrained\" to speak out for fear of losing community support. Jan hasn't let herself be intimidated into silence, but she admits that there are good reasons why some women are reluctant to speak out. A s she explains, \"It's a small enough community that everybody knows each other and people get picked out pretty quickly\u00E2\u0080\u0094who's an environmentalist and who's an environmentalist with a big voice and which ones of those actually are being heard. A n d they're being picked on.\" Norleen speaks of how she struggles with her own tendency to avoid conflict by being silent. Seeing this as something that many women struggle with, she comments, \"As I grew older, talking with other women, I realized that a phenomenal number of women cope by taking the role of smoothing things out, making sure everything is okay, and just denying that it's not right or that something hurts or to just make things better.\" Speaking of her growing realization that she is intimately connected to life on this planet and has a responsibility to speak out her concerns, she continues, 286 \"I'm not gonna be quiet because people think I should be quiet. A n d even i f they're my friends, I 'll seek a way to try and be gentle when I tell them, but it's not okay for me to be silent any more, actually, for me to be silenced any more! But citing a recent event where she didn't speak up, she admits, \"I still struggle with it.\" Many women who have dared to speak up voiced their frustration with those who refuse to listen. In particular, they argued that, when women speak out men often don't listen. Their stories of being marginalized and silenced at government-led tables and by dominating men in the movement bear testimony to their concerns. As Fiona puts it, \"I often see a glazed-over look in a man's eyes when he's shutting down, unable to listen to what a woman has to say. I find women still aren't listened to as well as men are listened to.\" Explaining this dynamic in terms of power differences, she argues that \"people who are used to being in power\" have not learned to listen to others. Jan gives an example, from the 1993 Peace Camp, of men not listening. \"There were concerns about safety at the Peace Camp. ... A n d there were women who were speaking out... about their concern for safety and it was very hard to get through to the men who were doing security. The men didn't want to hear that their security wasn't good enough.\" Speaking of the attack on the Camp that followed these warnings, she comments, \"Women spoke out and they weren't heard and then they got hurt.\" A s several women commented, it doesn't feel very good to have what you say ignored and trivialized. Lorna knows that she brings important perspectives to Council . But she describes how she has felt the few times when men on the Council didn't seem to be taking her comments seriously. \"It isn't a very good feeling. ... It's really a feeling of being sort of left out.\" Jan points out that when people 287 stop listening she stops speaking. As a director of the Friends, she sees herself as \"very self-confident in expressing my opinions in most circles.\" But as she explains, \"When I feel like I'm not being heard ... I won't bother ... cause they're not listening.\" Reflections. In sharing their struggles to speak out in public, these women's stories provide evidence of an inner dimension to process\u00E2\u0080\u0094the willingness to speak out and to listen to others. In explaining women's silences as the result of social conditioning, and in speaking of their frustration with men who don't listen, they suggest that there is a gendered dimension of this inner process. A s feminist critics of planning point out, many men and women have internalized the notion that women have nothing worth saying in the public domain (MacGregor 1995; Mi l roy 1991; Sandercock & Forsyth 1992). Gendered notions of the 'knowing' self which privilege men as 'knowers' serve to silence women and to legitimize men's unwillingness to listen (Garry & Pearsall 1989; Harding 1991; Jaggar & Bordo 1989; Plumwood 1993, 1995). When women do speak out, what they say is often trivialized and ignored; and the women themselves are often the targets of backlash that can include the use of violence (Di Chiro 1992; James 1992; Seager 1993; West & Blumberg 1990). In reflecting on these women's concerns about speaking out in the midst of controversy, however, I would suggest another reason for their silence\u00E2\u0080\u0094the fear of fragmenting relationships. Having to choose between important relations with human others and concerns for the forests is the unfortunate consequence of conflict-generating processes. A s these 288 women's stories suggest, processes that create the 'space' for women and men to speak out do not guarantee that women w i l l dare to speak out or that men wi l l listen when they do. Their stories suggest that the recognition of both men and women as legitimate 'knowers,' freedom from the threat of backlash and violence, and processes capable of dealing constructively with conflict are preconditions for inclusive processes in which both men and women are wi l l ing to speak their concerns and listen fully to the concerns of others. Insisting on the Full Participation of Women When asked for their opinion on the matter, all of the women I spoke with were emphatic in insisting on the importance of women's full participation in decisions around sustainability in the region. In explaining the reasoning behind their replies, and in identifying women's potential contributions to these decision-making processes, most of their responses fell into one or more of the following arguments: (1) women are half the population and should have half the say; (2) women often bring different and critical perspectives to the table; (3) women often contribute to better process; and (4) women are more often wil l ing to challenge the status quo. Whether or not women have anything different to say, several women insisted that they have as much right to participate in decisions as men do. Explaining her insistence on the importance of women's full participation, Cori remarks, \"Wel l , just for the simple reason of equality! Women's voices should be heard on that political level as well , and they're not!\" A s Barbara puts it, \"They take up half the space on the planet and it's important for their input to be heard and felt.\" 289 Without women's presence at these decision-making tables, Estella fears that women's interests and concerns wi l l be ignored. Arguing that \"women should really have equal say,\" she explains, \"For too long men have made the decisions for everybody and I do think that when men make decisions, they make decisions on their own behalf but not on behalf of women.\" Many women argued that women often bring different and critical perspectives to the table. A s several women pointed out, these differing perspectives often arise out of real differences in the lives and experiences of men and women. A s Jan puts it, because \"women's realms of activity are different, often, their viewpoint of the world is different.\" She points to motherhood as one of those realms of activities and explains, \" A lot of women are connected with their families and they'd have a view centred around their children's lives--not that fathers couldn't, but they don't\u00E2\u0080\u0094but I hear women bringing those issues up.\" A s several women observed, it is often as mothers that women express their concerns for present and future generations and raise questions about the long-term impacts of decisions. Other women suggested that women's differing economic realities provide them with different perspectives. Joan argues that women's input into the two government processes mandated to develop a sustainability strategy for Clayoquot Sound would have increased both the diversity and sustainability of economic options considered. A s she explains, \"Women are very involved in tourism in this community and in small business ... Environmental interests would have been much stronger ... [and] community services ... We would have had more diversity as far as ... employment in the area for women, especially in the native community. And we would have looked at a lot more alternatives as far as proposals to diversify ... that would've been more sustainable ... 290 cause I think women are very concerned that they can raise their kids here, that there might be opportunities for them here.\" These women did not always have easy explanations for the different perspectives that women often bring to the table. Sometimes, they simply offered their own experiences and observations as evidence. Finding it difficult to explain the differences between men and women \"without putting down men totally,\" Barbara observes that it is often women who bring non-economic issues to the table. A s she explains, \"Some men do seem very much concerned with profit making and they think that decisions can only be justified for economic reasons. There are some women that feel that way too, but there are probably more men that feel that way.\" Fiona is one of several women who notice that it is often women who bring other ways of knowing\u00E2\u0080\u0094emotion, intuition, experience\u00E2\u0080\u0094to processes. Commenting on the 1989-90 Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force (CSSDTF) , she observes, \"The voices that really spoke eloquently were often women's, some were men's, but they were from the heart and they talked about emotion.\" Feeling a deep sense of connection to the forests, and to life on this planet, several women suggested that they, and other women would bring this sense of connection to decisions. Voicing this conviction, Julie comments, \"I shouldn't speak on behalf of all the women here but, I can't help but think that.\" Lorna voices what several women expressed when she argues that many, but not all , women bring a deep understanding of the issues to the table. \"The ones that are concerned really understand what's at stake. They know that it's our lives, it's the continuation of the human species and all the other species that live on the planet.... They seem to really understand what's at stake and the importance and the urgency of doing something about it.\" 291 Like many women, she acknowledges that there are also men \"who work very very hard on these issues.\" But as she puts it, \"I feel that women do bring a different perspective.\" Drawing on their own experiences and observations, several women suggested that the presence of women often contributes to better process. Reflecting on her experiences with the introduction of feminist process into the Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Valerie voices the sentiment of many women when she comments, \"The more that women became involved, the better the group worked, as far as I can see.\" Maureen says the same of her experiences with the Chamber of Commerce and the District of Tofino Council . Observing that women's increased presence positively influenced both the direction and process of these groups, she argues that women often bring \"a different ethic\" to the table. She explains this ethic. \"Preferring to not take a vote and have somebody lose and somebody win but to try to come to something that everyone can feel happy with. ... It's a desire for sharing or fairness. ... A n d concern for the environment, for the well-being of people and creatures.\" In her experience, even when women don't share a concern for the environment, they \"bring to the table the desire to talk it out as fully as possible.\" A willingness to talk things through, to work towards a fair and considered decision, to consider social and environmental concerns, and to consider and share feelings were some of the reasons given for why women's presence often changes a process for the better. But as Lorna cautions, \"having women doesn't always work out to the better.\" A s a member of Council , she recalls when other women on Council have actively opposed environmental positions. Claiming that 292 \"We're working better as a Council [with] more men on board,\" she argues that what's most important is the values that people bring to the table. Several women remarked that it is most often women who bring values and issues to the table that challenge the status quo. A s Valerie puts it, \"the majority of the people who are really pushing for progressive change are all women.\" Explaining the large numbers women protesting environmental destruction, Joan comments, \"We're not all busy running the big corporations or government positions yet.\" Because of this economic and political marginalization, Catherine argues that women have an easier time \"seeing through the crap of the patriarchal system than men do.\" A s she puts it, \"[Women] don't have as much at stake in hanging onto the system.\" Maureen suggests that many men find it hard to challenge the \"old boys network\" that they belong to or aspire to. Reflecting on her experience at one government-led table, she recalls how difficult it was for one man representing Tofino to bring up the tough issues. \"He was [doing] it sometimes, but there were lots of times when I found [that] ... he was part of this boys network around the table and he was loathe to step out of that and become the trouble maker, the hysterical one. A n d there were opportunities that got missed in the process.\" In contrast, neither she nor the two other Tofino women at the table had trouble fulfilling that role. A s she puts it, \"We weren't part of the network so it was no big deal for us to cause the trouble and it was kind of expected, you know.\" Despite the disrespect shown to them, she notes the impact that they had. 293 \"The reason that we were at the table, the reason that we had five years of negotiation, was because these women brought these issues to the table. ... We were forcing all those people to sit there.\" Reflections. In insisting on the full participation of women in decisions affecting the sustainability of the region, these women challenge the political marginalization of women from the processes by which we come to understand and resolve environmental problems. In affirming the different and critical perspectives that many women bring to the table, and their contributions to good process, they insist that women have important substantive and procedural insights and skills to offer. In noting that it is often women who bring values and perspectives that challenge the status quo, they offer an oppression-based argument, grounded in women's lived economic and political realities, for why women's participation is essential. Marginalized by patriarchal economic structures, women often bring to processes different and critical perspectives that reflect their experiences as mothers and housewives, their livelihood struggles, and their understanding of the non-economic dimensions of life. Marginalized by a gendered politics, women often bring to these processes other ways of knowing, an ethic of care and responsibility born of felt connections, and concern for process. A s ecofeminist critics of planning point out, these non-instrumental ways of knowing and relating have been relegated to the 'private' by a masculinist public domain (Birkeland 1991, 1993a, 1993b; Plumwood 1993, 1995). A s V a l Plumwood (1993, 188) concludes, to the extent that women give voice to the non-instrumental values and concerns of the relational 294 self, they \"indeed have something highly valuable to offer.\" A s these women's stories suggest, the economic and political margins can be a place of not only oppression but of a 'critical otherness' that challenges the status quo. In the context of a complex web of oppressions, however, some women are more marginalized than others, and some seek to participate fully in political processes that continue to silence marginalized others. The challenge, I would argue, is to critically support the full participation of women and other marginalized peoples, while struggling to create processes open to non-instrumental ways of knowing and relating, and to the social, economic, and ecologically concerns of the relational self. Community Process: Telling a Story of Promise and Betrayal In calling for inclusive and broad-based community processes, several of these women spoke passionately of one promising community process in which they and many other women had been actively involved. A s they tell it, it is the story of how the provincial government betrayed Tofino's efforts to find a community-based solution to social and ecological fragmentation in the region. The story begins in early 1988 immediately prior to the government's establishment of the Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force. Tired of valley-by-valley struggles, and concerned about growing forest conflicts in the region, the Friends of Clayoquot Sound sent a telegram to government and industry \"calling for a full sustainable development plan involving all the communities of Clayoquot Sound\" (FOCS 1993, np). A s Maryjka points out, \"They envisioned it as a community-295 controlled process.\" Both the Tofino Long-Beach Chamber of Commerce and the District Council o f Tofino responded favourably to the call. With many of its members dependent on wilderness tourism for a living, the Chamber was anxious to protect the ecological basis of these livelihoods. Maureen was a member of the Chamber at that time and explains their position, \"We wanted to have some sort of larger planning process put in place ... and demanded a sustainable development strategy for Clayoquot Sound and said that in the meantime there should not be any more clearcutting until that plan is in place.\" With environmentalists newly elected to the District Council of Tofino, the Council and the Chamber soon joined forces. B y December 1988, a consultant had been hired to facilitate the development of a community-based sustainable development strategy and the community process was set in motion. A s they envisioned it, the process was to begin with \"the residents of Tofino and, i f they decide to join, of the Native communities of Clayoquot Sound\" (SCSD 1989b, 18). Together, they would seek consensus on a strategy that reflected the concerns and needs of the people of Clayoquot Sound, but that also considered the concerns of \"the communities and other interested parties outside of Clayoquot Sound that are likely to be affected by the Strategy\" ( S C S D 1989b, 18). The intent of the process was not to exclude the forest industry, but to place it in the context of broader and more diverse community concerns. A s Joan puts it, \"The community model would have tried to fit in the concerns of industry ... after the community had sort of had a chance to really define everything.\" In February 1989, Council and the Chamber formed the Steering Committee for Sustainable Development 296 (SCSD) to oversee the development of this strategy, and appointed community members representing a broad range of interests to sit on it. Over the next few months, a series of community workshops and meetings were held to introduce the concept of sustainable development, to facilitate the sharing of concerns and visions, and to begin the process of building community consensus for the strategy. A s several women pointed, there were many women actively involved in the workshops as well as in the leadership and planning of the process. Commenting on the \"real super cross-section of the community\" participating in these workshops, and on the positive feelings in the community during these months, Merry remarks, \"It really, really did bring the whole community together!\" The concluding statement from the February Sustainable Development Forum reflects the optimistic mood of the community. This community process w i l l provide many answers\u00E2\u0080\u0094the influence of which w i l l radiate far beyond the area of Clayoquot Sound. ... Tofino is demonstrating leadership in the environment-economy link and is recognized as the first community in Canada to propose a Sustainable Development Strategy. We wi l l be in a position to promote sound economic decisions for our community and share our experience with others ( S C S D 1989c, 8). In M a y 1989, the Steering Committee for Sustainable Development presented their proposal to the Environment and Land Use Committee ( E L U C ) of the British Columbia Cabinet. They were asking the provincial government to approve their proposal in principle, to financially support the development of the strategy, and to protect, during the planning process, the ecological integrity of areas identified as essential to the economy of 297 communities in Clayoquot Sound (SCSD 1989a, 3-4). Placing the fate of their process in the hands of the government, the Committee wrote, The actual planning process can begin when the provincial government says it wants to see community-initiated sustainable development planning here as a model for B . C . and when funding, whether private or public, becomes available (SCSD 1989d, 15). But as these women tell the story, the government did not want to see a 'community-initiated sustainable development planning' process. In response to the community's proposal, the government instituted, instead, a process of its own choosing. Following a July visit to Clayoquot Sound by then Premier B i l l Vander Zalm, the government announced the formation of the Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force. Maryjka describes how the government took over the community-initiated process. \"Vander Zalm said, 'Yeah, Okay. ... We're gonna set up this Task Force and the government w i l l run it and we'll decide who sits, what sort of sectors are represented and who is appointed to those, and all that.'\" What had once, been a vibrant community process was reduced to a few seats at a top-down, government-defined table. Expressing her regret at the opportunity lost, Joan comments, \"It really was quite a loss as far as the potential for developing a real community grassroots plan for the area.\" Comparing the two processes, Merry comments, \"The contrast there was tremendous! ... A n d I felt sure that the whole government process was set up almost to stall. i f possible, all the good things that were happening!\" The rest is history\u00E2\u0080\u0094another set of failed government processes had been set in motion. The 1989-90 Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force got caught up in short term logging issues and failed to reach consensus on a sustainability strategy for Clayoquot Sound. The 1991-92 Clayoquot Sound 298 Sustainable Development Strategy Steering Committee which replaced it came to a similar end. When the government finally announced their land use decision for Clayoquot Sound in A p r i l 1993, it sparked the mass protests of the summer of 1993. A n d as women pointed out, the litany of failed processes hasn't stopped. A s Lorna puts it, \"It's just continued from there! ... There's just a couple dozen other processes that sprouted from there! A n d we've become more and more alienated as far as I can see.\" In reflecting on their own experiences with the 1988-89 community process, several women expressed a longing to return to it. As Fiona puts it, \"I'd like us to start back into those processes we started.\" Reflecting on how things might have been i f the original process had actually gotten under way, Joan replies both cautiously and positively. \"It's hard to say, because we never even got to try ... But I think we would have had a community that was much stronger and tighter in a way because we would have gotten to define a lot of issues that were important to the community.\" Not only would there have been a broad range of issues at the table, but women would have had a much more active presence. A s she explains, \"If it was a local based planning process you would have gotten more locals involved, and women happen to be quite active in our community, as in a lot of communities.\" But as L . J . recalls, all was not perfect within the community process either. A s examples, she cites the decline of First Nations participation as the process progressed, and the close ties between outside corporate interests and some community members. 299 A s a final example, she speaks of the ongoing difficulties that she and others encountered in trying to have community values recognized as a legitimate and important part of the process. Noting the gendered nature of this resistance, she comments, \"That was one time I felt this is because we are women asking for this that we're having such a hard time getting it even acknowledged [as] a valid part of the process.\" Pointing out that the Community Values Committee never had a formal seat on the local Steering Committee for Sustainable Development, she argues that the only reason that community values were included at all is \"because we demanded it!\" She recalls the meeting where this happened. \"Deb got up ... after they said there was going to be forestry and fishing and so on and she said, 'Okay, well what about the rest of us who don't know anything about these issues? Don't we have any say in the sustainability of this community, or what our concerns are?' They ... were going to ignore her and I got damned mad and got up! So [we] were asked i f we would take over this area.\" A s a committee of mostly women, they organized the Community Values workshops during the community-led process and later guided the Community Values Survey that was carried out for the local Steering Committee. Once these tasks were done, she claims that they \"sort of had the rug pulled out from under\" them. \"There was never any mandate given to this committee and we had started in what we thought were directions we wanted to go. ... A n d once the Survey was done ... there was a very strong position on the Steering Committee that said, 'Thanks. N o w go and retire.' We didn't have any function left after that.\" In L.J.'s opinion, the social and environmental values expressed through the Survey could have played a significant role in informing future policies and directions for development in Tofino, and the failure to take these values and the Survey seriously is \"partly why we have so much unhappiness in this community.\" A s she comments, \" M y disillusionment [is] that so 300 few of the recommendations that came out of that committee have ever been acted on.\" Pointing to other processes where decisions have ended up on the shelf, she emphasizes the limitations of even 'good' processes that produce 'good' decisions. As she puts it, \"Local and provincial and federal governments aren't backing those recommendations with any decision-making.\" A s she continues, \" A l l these ideas are there to try to protect the environment... but getting anybody to act on them is very difficult.\" Reflections. In sharing their stories of a vibrant community process, and of the active involvement of women in this process, these women affirm the possibility of moving towards inclusive and broad-based decision-making processes that challenge top-down, economistic, and patriarchal land use processes. In doing so, they echo the calls for community-based decision-making among proponents of ecological forestry (Hammond 1991, 1993; N i x o n 1993) and give voice to the participatory ethos found within the ecocentric literature (Andruss et al. 1990; Bookchin 1989; Devall & Sessions 1985; Plant & Plant 1992). A t the same time, these women's stories of government betrayal locate community processes in the context of socio-political structures that act to protect the interests of the status quo, and the forest industry in particular. A s their stories suggest, without broader structural change, the potential of community processes is limited. Furthermore, these women's stories locate the call for community control in the context of a complex web of relationships that exist within and extend beyond the community. On the one hand, Tofino's efforts to develop a 301 community process involving First Nations communities in the Sound, while trying to consider the needs of outside communities, locate the call for community control in a complex, and often conflicting, set of relationships with other communities. On the other hand, their stories of declining First Nations' participation, corporate links to community members, and the marginalization of the female-dominated Community Values Committee, reveal the complex web of social relations and inequities that exist within and extend beyond the community. A s Robyn Eckersley (1992, 182) argues, in considering the call for community control it is important to recognize \"the many different layers of social and ecological community that cohere beyond the level of the local community.\" These women's stories remind us that it is also important to pay attention to the many different, and sometimes oppressive, relationships that cohere within the local community. 302 CHAPTER 9 FROM DESTRUCTIVE VALUES AND WAYS OF BEING TO LIFE-AFFIRMING VALUES AND 'GENTLE' WAYS OF BEING Women's Stories: Personal Reflections Challenging Culturally Dominant Values In voicing their concerns about social and ecological fragmentation in Clayoquot Sound, these women often challenged culturally dominant values that, in their minds, are contributing significantly to the problems they see. Deb voices what many of the women expressed when she says, \"Our values are all wrong! ... The whole value system is wrong, and until it changes I don't know what's going to happen.\" Human arrogance towards other species, and a preoccupation with materialist values were central to the critiques that many of these women offered. They challenged a human arrogance that assumes that humans are superior to the rest of nature. A s Maryjka explains, the view that humans are \"over and above nature and have the right to use it in whatever way they want is basically the fundamental principle underlying our western civilization\" and the source of today's 303 environmental problems. For her and other women, logging practices that destroy the integrity of forest ecosystems and threaten the homes and existence of the countless plants and creatures that live there are a prime example of this human arrogance. Expressing her own concern that these practices are threatening some of the last remaining temperate rainforests in the world and endangering the well-being of other species, Claudette comments, \"I think it's very arrogant of humans just to think that we can use up every single inch of this planet for our own greed and pleasure.\" Challenging the disrespect shown to other beings, Valerie says of her activism, \"This is as much a fight against arrogance, a cultural arrogance, as a fight for a beautiful area.\" Many women were critical of the value this culture places on money and material wealth. The effect, they argued, is to deny nonmaterial and intrinsic values and to reduce the worth of both human and nonhuman nature to monetary terms. Arguing that \"money rules the universe,\" Deb speaks of how material wealth determines the worth of the individual. A s she puts it, \"It's how much money you have these days that makes a good citizen. If you're wealthy you're bound to be okay. If you're down at the other end of the scale, there's something wrong with you, you're lacking in something.\" A s many women pointed out, defining our \"success\" and self-worth in terms of having lots of money keeps us aspiring to materialistic lifestyles and what Valerie calls, \"things that never make you happy.\" A s she explains, \"We haven't developed a sense, in our culture, of how to satisfy ourselves. We've just been told that i f you have enough money you'll be satisfied and it keeps on not working!\" Others pointed out that this value serves to de-legitimize the 304 concerns, visions, and perspectives of those who choose to live more gently on the planet. Pointing to the nonmaterialist values and poverty lifestyles of many environmentalists, Claudette illustrates the \"total catch 22\" that many find themselves in. \"The people who value the environment and their time, and living a life to enjoy l iving rather than living a life to earn money, they're not going to have a lot of money ... [so] they are of lower stature in the community. It's the people who are into money ... that have more stature and have more clout.\" Several women argued that materialistic values have been used to justify the degradation of complex forest ecosystems in the name of corporate profits and highly materialistic lifestyles. A s Fiona puts it, \"The dominant system sees the trees as money and has the power to treat the trees as money and turn the trees into money. A n d ... they have to scrape the land to get as much money as they can while they're there!\" Embedded in land use processes, materialist values serve to privilege short-term profits over concerns about long-term sustainability. Pointing to the crisis mentality and conflict born out of these \"efficient\" processes, Merry comments, \"One of the things in our culture that's hard to combat is this business of time being money and money being the only operative god these days. So we've gotta rush at everything. So no wonder there's always a crisis and so many problems and the resolution of problems gets deadlines put on them which then makes the resolution impossible!\" Challenging the ethical basis of decisions made at these tables, she continues, \"For an awful lot of people these days, the 'bottom-line' is their ethical base ... and what is right and moral and just is making a profit!\" Critical of the destruction brought about in the name of money, Karen exclaims, \"It's money and power making the decisions!\" One of those who appreciates 305 the intrinsic value of life in these forests and recognizes the life-sustaining role of intact forest ecosystems, Claudette speaks for many when she points to the destructiveness of this narrow ethic. A s she puts it, \"Genetic diversity is more valuable that gold ... There are so many values here that are not monetary ... that are more valuable than money. Y o u can't drink money\u00E2\u0080\u0094water is valuable. Y o u can't breathe money\u00E2\u0080\u0094oxygen-producing trees are valuable. Y o u can't spawn fish in money\u00E2\u0080\u0094you have to have an intact ecosystem for those salmon to go. ... Perhaps there's no monetary value on a slug or a squirrel, but I don't think that's any reason why we can allow them to go extinct.\" Challenging the destructiveness of materialist values, many of the women affirmed the importance of non-monetary values that bring meaning and quality to their lives. A n important one for many of them was \"time\"\u00E2\u0080\u0094time for relationships, time for themselves, time to do the things that enhance their lives, and time just to \"be.\" A s Fiona puts it, l iving gently on the planet \"gives you the time to look at yourself and your place in this planet and what you're here for.\" Commenting on the influence that these non-material values have on the choices we make, Claudette remarks, \"If you value things other than money\u00E2\u0080\u0094such as serenity, your conscience, your free time\u00E2\u0080\u0094then you're going to choose to do something that's in line with that.\" Reflections. In expressing concern about human arrogance and materialistic values, and in providing concrete examples of how they see these values reflected in unsustainable forest practices, materialistic lifestyles, and failed land use processes, these women provide 306 support for ecocentric concerns about the underlying cultural roots of the environmental crisis, and about anthropocentric and materialistic values in particular (Devall & Sessions 1985; Drengson 1980; Eckersley 1992; Livingston 1981; Naess 1989). In affirming the intrinsic worth of other species and the importance of nonmaterial values that bring meaning and quality to their lives, they provide evidence that there are members of western culture who are challenging the dominant values of their own culture. While much of the ecocentric literature focuses on how these values shape how we understand ourselves 'as humans' in relation to nonhuman nature, these women's stories suggest that these values shape our understanding of what it means to be human in relation to both nonhuman and human nature. In particular, they suggest that materialistic values play a powerful role in denying the intrinsic value of all l iving beings, in blinding us to nonmaterial values that enhance and sustain our well-being, and in defining some humans as more worthy than others. Challenging Destructive Ways of Being Drawing on their own experiences and observations, many of these women expressed concern about competitive, dominating, disrespectful, confrontational, and violent ways of being that contribute significantly to social and ecological fragmentation in the region. In doing so, they often made links between these destructive ways of being and culturally dominant values. Several made links between competitive ways of being and materialistic values shaping the nature of development in Tofino and Clayoquot Sound. Critical o f destructive forest practices in the Sound and unsustainable development in Tofino, Merry 307 voices concern about the competitive nature of her own culture. A s she puts it, \"Competition, i f it is held out as the main way people should live their lives, leads to a very destructive way of living, way of relating to other people, way of dealing with life, way of solving problems.\" A s she explains, competition, as the \"dominant principle on which our society is based,\" rationalizes the pursuit of individual self interest, discourages collective action, and perpetuates environmental destruction. In the end, it serves the interests of the powerful few. A s she explains, \"What they do is make the conditions such that the strongest, the most powerful can eliminate competition [from] anybody that is not as strong and as powerful. ... A n d I think the fact that it is so dominant is the thing that causes the problems in our society! It's the thing that causes the destruction of our environment for profit!\" In the context of conflicts over the nature of development in Tofino, several women expressed their concern that other values get lost in the name of competitive self-interest. Concerned about the social and ecological impacts of one large-scale development in her neighbourhood, Barbara comments, \"There were people in town that felt that the developer should be able to do whatever he wanted out there and ... Council was weighted in their favour.\" Despite the environmental and quality of life values expressed in the 1990 Community Values Survey, L . J . comments that these values are not being translated into development decisions. A s she puts it, \"When it comes to implementation, the consensus breaks down because somebody's vested interest is concerned.\" In speaking about materialistic values and competitive ways of being, many of these women were quick to locate these in the context of hierarchical structures and the exercise of 308 what several called 'power-over.' A s Julie describes it, \"There's people in power and then there's the multitude of workers or citizens who don't have that much power.\" While many women focused on the exercise of 'power-over' by, and for the benefit of, the powerful few, others argued that dominating ways of being permeate this culture and translate into what Julie calls \"a vicious, vicious cycle of violence.\" Valerie makes links between domination, felt powerlessness, and violence towards human and nonhuman nature. \"It's feeling ... unsatisfied and powerless inside of ourselves, and taking it out on whatever we can. ... Where people feel like they're just cogs, they'll take it out wherever they can, wherever they can feel power. When you're holding a big machine and cutting down a 1,500 year-old tree, that's power! A n d when you're beating on somebody else, that's power!\" Some women argued that 'power-over' plays a significant role in promoting the values of the powerful few. A s Fiona puts it, \"What they believe is real and right, there are no alternatives in their minds. It seems that once these people get into power they just see the one reality, and often that reality is motivated by money or power. ... Anything that deviates from that doesn't fit.\" Pointing to what happens to those who challenge this dominant reality, Lorna comments, \"Anyone who rocks the boat is going to be looked down upon and stigmatized. ... The people who are trying to make the change, even though the change is in the best interests of everybody, are very much opposed, looked down upon and generally regarded as radicals that have nothing better to do than to rant and rave.\" A s some of those challenging the status quo, these women spoke of the disrespect, aggression, and violence they have experienced and observed. Those who had participated in and observed failed land use processes spoke of the disrespect, and sometimes aggression, directed towards those who dared to challenge industry interests and practices. Others spoke 309 of the disrespect and verbal abuse directed towards them on the blockades by those defending industry interests. Making a link between violence in the forests and the verbal violence directed at her and others on the road, Jan comments, \"It's hard for me to distinguish that they're treating me any different than they're treating the tree in the forest.\" Referring to one instance where industry protesters were \"outrageously verbally violent,\" Norleen explains, \"It scared so many people, so many people were in tears. It was shocking for them to come up against someone in their face swearing and yelling.\" Several women told stories of threats and physical violence directed towards environmental activists and supporters. A s Valerie describes it, \"There's been a number of threats. ... A couple of people have been roughed up over the last number of years,... tires slashed, windows broken, those sorts of things ... Aside from verbal threats, somebody wrecked my [bed & breakfast] sign once just after the blockade started.\" Voic ing her \"growing concerns\" about the potential for violence in the region, and explaining the Friends' decision not to blockade during the summer of 1994, Jan cites several incidents of violence towards environmental activists and comments, \"It just seems ... there's more social support for being violent against environmentalists.\" Concerned about escalating violence in the region, several women expressed discomfort with the confrontational nature of many environmental protests. Reflecting on a local campaign to stop illegal bear killings, Catherine comments, \"I'm having some real confusing feelings about what kind of involvement I want to have because the energy of it feels like a war campaign.\" Arguing that \"confrontational, warlike ... energy can really get us 310 into trouble,\" she points out that even non-violent protests can carry that energy. A s she explains, \" A lot of the tactics are set up as confrontational tactics and even though there's a decision to be not violent, there's still the energy of 'We're gonna show you!'\" She voices the sentiment of many of the women, when she says of non-violent blockades, \"I didn't like it at al l !\" But she also speaks of how easy it is to \"get caught up in the energy and hype of it, the 'We're gonna get them! We're gonna show them!' stuff.\" Explaining her decision to move away from front line activism to pursue activism \"from a spiritual perspective,\" she says, \"I want my energy to be directed ... to healing, not in a confrontational situation like that.\" Julie shares a similar story. Describing herself as someone who is \"still walking through some of my demons,\" she speaks of her participation in a recent bear action, \"We ruined a day for some trophy bear killers ... There was lots of anger and yelling and I was right in there too, yelling. It's like I'm not grounded and I'm not really being myself. I'm just being angry and I'm sorta being like them. They're yelling at me and I'm yelling right back.\" Expressing her desire to move past the rage that fuels this behaviour, she says, \"I'm looking to be more gentle with myself.\" Reflections. In challenging destructive ways of being, these women provide concrete examples of the kinds of behaviours that are tolerated, and even encouraged within a culture dominated by human arrogance and materialistic values. A s ecofeminists argue, the logic of domination embedded within culturally dominant constructs promotes and rationalizes 311 destructive and violent ways of being and relating to self and earth others (Griffin 1989; K i n g 1989; Plumwood 1993; Warren 1987, 1990). A s these women's stories suggest, destructive ways of being encourage the pursuit of individual self-interest at the expense o f long-term sustainability, protect the interests of the powerful few, and serve to silence those who would challenge the status quo. But as their stories also reveal, destructive ways of being are not restricted to those defending the status quo. Their concerns about the confrontational nature of many environmental protests, and their own participation in these kinds of behaviours, remind us of how easy it is to reproduce rather than challenge the destructive ways of our own culture. The Masculine Face of Destructive Ways of Being In challenging destructive ways of being, many women associated these behaviours with men and culturally dominant notions of masculinity, and offered concrete examples of what they considered to be male competitiveness, disrespect, aggressiveness, and violence. In expressing their concerns about the destructive practices of a male-dominated forest industry and the failure of male-dominated processes, several women pointed to the competitiveness, aggression, and disrespect displayed by men defending their own economic and political interests. Concerned about the logging practices of forest workers, the senseless ki l l ing of animals by trophy hunters, and the intimidation and violence directed towards environmentalists by those defending the industry, other women pointed to the violence displayed by men towards both human and nonhuman nature. In particular, these women 312 shared stories of their experiences and struggles, 'as women' activists, with men's put-downs, aggression, intimidation, and violence. Several spoke of the disrespect and insults directed towards women activists by men. A s one of several women who had observed the disrespect and condescension displayed by government and industry men towards women who brought non-industry concerns to male-dominated tables, Deb says, \"The attitude was that these women ... really didn't know what they were doing and they were only doing it because they didn't have anything else to do with their time.\" A s then-editor of the regional paper, Cori speaks of how her boss put down her editorial coverage of the 1992 Clayoquot A r m blockades. \"I sided with them ... and [he] gave me a hell of a lot of flack for doing that and would constantly call me up and mock my writing because it was too romantic and too feminine and too biased ... It was a constant process of denigration for my writing.\" Affected by, but trying to resist his put-downs, she comments, \"It wasn't at all very good for my self-esteem, except for the fact that I knew that he was wrong.\" She also tells of insults from male journalists, bureaucrats, and loggers. \"They w i l l look me up and down and they'll comment on my clothes or whatever ... cheesy, stupid, irritating comments. ... I'm perceived first as a woman and second as a professional. A n d I think that's a major problem.\" Valerie shares some of her own experiences with men's put-downs, insults, and threats. \"I've found [one forest company consultant] to be patronizing and insulting to me in a way which he would never dare to be to a man, commenting on my clothing, for example ... and he thought he could belittle me in that way. ... A n d certainly on the blockades I've been threatened to be thrown over the bridge, physical violence has been threatened. A n d the number of times I've been called a bitch ... I couldn't count.\" Responding to these behaviours, she adds, \"They seem to feel that's the sort of thing that they 313 can insult me with all the time, because they don't like my political ideals.\" Merry speaks of the condescension she has experienced and observed over her many years of activism, \"What I have thought and felt all my life is that... males have responded to me differently because I was a woman and also in the last few years because I am an old woman. ... I've been used, all my life, to this cavalier attitude ... 'You don't know what you're talking about, you're a woman!' Seventy years of it!\" Pointing out that this kind of behaviour has also come from men \"who were supposed to be acting with me,\" she adds, \"It made me feel rotten and angry ... but it certainly didn't hold me back ... In fact, it almost always made me more determined!\" In expressing concern about 'masculinist'1 behaviour, several women commented on the aggressiveness of fellow activists. Reflecting on her experiences in the environmental and Central American resistance movements, and on the \"real aggressive kind of energy\" on the logging blockades, Catherine comments, \" A lot of activism is a real cowboy kind of energy ... that sort o f 'Be out there and go get em!' energy.\" As Maryjka puts it, this aggressive male energy \"really comes forward and the guys wanna do all sorts of dare-devil kinds of things that can lead to confrontation and the tempers flaring.\" Norleen shares her experience with this kind of male energy at one blockade elsewhere on Vancouver Island. Describing the mood at discussion circles, she says, \"There was kind of the 'stop-em' mentality and the circles got aggressive as far as guys arguing, and it was always guys arguing!\" Noticing the decreasing numbers of women at the blockade over time, and 1 In response to feedback about the racist undertones of the word 'macho,' I have chosen to use descriptors such as 'masculinist' and 'aggressive' to describe male dominant behaviours that are often referred to as 'macho.' See the discussion under 'Member Checks' in Chapter 4, Section 4.2. 314 describing the men who remained as \"young committed forest loving fellas who thought the only way to resolve things was to be more powerful,\" she speaks of the incident that prompted her to leave, \"One time that really kind of made me question was in a circle someone said, 'Oh i f they cut out the platform, I'll douse myself in gasoline and then they won't come near me! I'll torch myself! Rah!' A n d two of the guys went, 'Yah! Right on!' A n d I went, 'Wait a minute! Let's really talk about what's going to happen.' A n d I got laughed at ... I felt really belittled and didn't feel any support in the circle and left soon after.\" Expressing her discomfort with this kind of talk, she continues, \"I didn't like it because it wasn't making things safer and easier. It was making it harder.\" O f all the behaviours that these women associated with 'masculinist' ways of being, sexual intimidation and male violence raised the most concern. While many environmentalists have been subjected to threats and violence, several women spoke of the particular ways in which they have felt threatened as women. Some spoke of veiled threats and intimidation. Julie tells of being sexually intimidated by a process server as she and others tried to stop the blasting of a logging road through Sulphur Pass in 1988, \"This guy ... was chasing me through the woods ... He ended up saying some quite sexual things to me, you know, like, 'Why don't we just rip off our clothes right now and make out' and just coming onto me like that. ... I don't know what was going on in his head, but... it felt pretty slimy at the time.\" Others spoke of their sense of vulnerability 'as women.' Jan recounts her efforts to get one policeman to take her fears of male violence seriously when she and other women found themselves boxed in by loggers as they tried to leave one blockade, \"I said, \"Wel l now, you've left us boxed in here and I don't feel safe.' A n d he said \"That's too bad,' A n d I said 'Listen, I'm speaking to you as a woman! I do not feel 315 safe here! I'm surrounded by angry logging men!' A n d he ... got into his car and started to drive away.... I was appalled!\" Merry struggles with the vulnerability she feels knowing that a sign posted on the edge of her property proclaims her environmental position, \"I've thought a lot about that sign out there and the fact that I'm a woman living alone.\" But after seventy years, she says, \"I don't scare any more!\" Some women spoke of male violence directed against the 1993 Peace Camp and against individual women within it. Jan tells of one of several violent attacks on the Camp, \"Young men, probably not even working in the forest, ... got all pissed up, came up to the Camp and threw rocks and yelled death threats and carried sticks. ... It was an all round scary situation.\" Maryjka gives an example of male violence within the Camp itself, \"There was a guy that should've been booted out [but wasn't] because he was beating up his pregnant girlfriend while he was there.\" In voicing their concerns about male violence, many women acknowledged it as a societal phenomenon. Merry argues that women are easy targets when it comes to physical violence, \"Women are more vulnerable, let's face it. I mean i f you've got somebody that's going to behave stupidly, then they're gonna pick on weak people, they aren't gonna pick on big strong people that can beat them up.\" Valerie insists that male violence is a symptom of women's oppression in this society, \"There's no woman that you can talk to who wi l l say that when she walks down the street in Vancouver at night, [she] doesn't feel fear. A n d men don't necessarily feel the fear. There's a very specific reason why women do, and that's because they are preyed upon. A n d that's an oppression!\" Recalling conversations with women standing on the other side of the blockades, she 316 continues, \"When it comes down to issues of wife abuse, we've got a lot to share.\" Knowing this, Jan wonders whether her activism is escalating violence in the homes of some of the women on the other side. A s she explains, \"Loggers are running out of jobs and I've known that for years and they've known that for years. A n d me standing on the road puts that in their face and brings that tension up. A n d statistics show that they take that out on their families.\" Speaking of the changes that she's thinking of making in her activism, she explains, \"It's very hard to do, but I feel like I need to put more energy into working with women and working with the transition house here and building communication.\" Fed up with the aggressive and domineering behaviours of men in the environmental movement, she left several months later to work at the women's centre in neighbouring Ucluelet. Several women saw 'masculinist' behaviours and male violence as expressions of the dominating and violent society they live in. Making links between the oppression of women and the ecological destruction happening in the forests, Valerie explains, \"It's all part of the same fabric.\" Describing this violence as different manifestations of'power over,' Norleen comments, \"It's still the same 'power over.' The 'power over' that says a man can come home and beat his wife i f he wants to, or he can harass the secretary or whatever, is the same 'power over' that says he can take a chain saw and k i l l this being. A n d it's society that says that's okay.\" Some women called this system of violence and domination 'patriarchy.' Others expressed some concern about the adequacy of this term to describe the destructive behaviours of their own culture. During the workshop discussion, women expressed concern that, as Merry puts 317 it, \"the word patriarchy drives men back into a corner.\" Presenting her own changed thinking around this, Fiona explains, \"Somehow I shifted a lot of blame for all this mess from men to the systems we use ... and that's the culture. I just thought that i f we could keep affecting systems, that these men don't have to be off in this big bully category that I've had them pasted in.\" A s she continues, \"I wonder i f patriarchy's even the right word any more ... i f it's a dysfunctional system?\" When I explained that some feminists are using the word 'dominator system' to describe \"a system where relations are those of domination\u00E2\u0080\u0094those who dominate and those who are dominated,\" there was lots of excited cross-talk. A s Lorna put it, \"I like that better ... It's more about a system of domination, and women can be the dominators too!\" Indeed, both within the workshop and in individual interviews, many women pointed out that women, too, are capable of the kinds of competitive, dominating, aggressive, and violent behaviours that they see most often in men. Unwil l ing to deny the 'masculine' nature of this dominator system, however, Fiona reminds us, \"I can still say it is male that is entrenched in that process. There's no getting around the fact that... the men hold the power. But we can also admit, as a society, that we're the ones that have trained them that way.\" Reflections. In associating destructive ways of being with men and masculinity, and in sharing their experiences and struggles with 'masculinist' behaviours, these women provide evidence of the patriarchal nature of culturally dominant ways of being. In sharing their concerns and fears about male violence, they also provide evidence of the structured nature of 318 male violence (Caputi 1992; Walby 1989). As feminists and ecofeminists argue, these 'masculinist' behaviours are the logical outcome of patriarchal notions of what it means to be human (Bordo 1986; Gray 1982; Harding 1991; Ortner 1974; Plumwood 1993; Seager 1993; Warren 1987, 1990; Wilshire 1989). Patriarchal values legitimize gender inequalities and condone 'masculinist' behaviours that serve to keep women 'in their place' as women. In providing concrete examples of the 'masculinist' behaviours directed towards them by men defending the interests of a male-dominated forest industry, these women's stories suggest that patriarchal values and 'masculinist' behaviours also provide gender-specific tools for men defending the status quo to use against women who dare to challenge ecological destruction, corporate control, and undemocratic processes. A s these women's stories of'masculinist' behaviours on the part of fellow activists suggest, to the extent that men in the environmental movement silence the concerns of women activists, they too serve the interests of the status quo. Introducing 'Gentle' Ways of Being In challenging destructive and 'masculinist' ways of being, many of these women called for 'gentle' ways of being that take into consideration the impact of one's behaviours on the well-being of others. A s one of these women, Barbara describes herself as \"more of a means person than an ends person\" and insists that the 'means' by which we achieve our ends is very important. In explaining her opposition to environmental tactics like tree-spiking, for example, she says, \"I don't think we can be absolutely sure of... the consequence of any 319 action that we take on this earth.... The only thing that we can be sure about is the process we go through.\" L ike many of the women, she supports \"process that is not destructive or harmful... and actions that have dignity and are not hurtful.\" Voic ing a similar sentiment, Deb says, \" Y o u don't do any harm. In other words, you don't do any harm to your neighbour, or to your children, or to your husband or to your wife. Y o u don't do any harm to the universe or the place around you.\" A s Catherine puts it, the challenge is to transform this violent and destructive culture into \"a loving caring culture.\" Sharing what she does in her personal life to transform this culture into \"a gentle and nurturing and loving\" one, Julie says, \"I spend time with the spirit world every day and I send my love and gratitude to the earth and to all my relations. ... Love is a very powerful energy and I think it's got a lot more power than anger does. It just hasn't had a chance for the last couple thousand years to express itself.\" Both personally and politically, these women advocated for, and introduced into their daily lives and their activism, ways of being that they would like their culture to live by. In doing so, they emphasized the importance of three principles: cooperation, respect, and nonviolence. In challenging the destructiveness of competitive ways of being, several women emphasized the importance of cooperation and collective efforts. Call ing for \"cooperation and sharing of responsibilities instead of this business of competing and grabbing,\" Merry comments on an article that she had written for the local paper, \" M y real theme of the article was the need to learn the whole value of cooperation and sharing and helping each other as a 320 way of life, in all aspects of life.\" A s she explains, \"Cooperation in all aspects of life is what people have to start valuing ... cause anybody who has had the experience of getting together with other people and doing a job ... and helping each other with it, and doing a job that you couldn't do yourself except with ... much more difficulty ... there's this incredible satisfaction in it!\" Reflecting on the cooperative spirit encouraged by the decision to run the 1993 Peace Camp on consensus and feminist principles, Valerie says, \"There was a sense of cooperation there, that nobody was being ordered, that there was just a helluva a lot of work to do and it had to get done and we had to cooperate. A n d this was absolutely the best way to do it without making people feel like shit.\" Noting the impact of this process on people coming through the camp, she adds, \"The concepts of working cooperatively were taught to twelve thousand people!\" Reflecting on the cooperative influence of feminist principles and women activists that she has worked with, she concludes, \"I've really come to appreciate what a difference it would make i f . . . our communities were run along the sort of feminist principles, the cooperative principles that I see the women here, and the women that we've networked, working with. That's been a really precious eye opener for me.\" In challenging disrespectful ways of being, many women insisted on the importance of treating others\u00E2\u0080\u0094other species, First Nations, women, and those with differing opinions (including other activists)\u00E2\u0080\u0094with respect. A s Estella puts it, \"Respect is an important word. Respect for each other and respect for where we live is something that we shouldn't be overlooking.\" Some women pointed out that respect is key to hearing what others have to say. Sharing her own process for learning respect, Norleen says, \"I begin by learning what my actions cost... becoming aware, having an open mind, and just listening.\" Emphasizing 321 the importance of maintaining respect in the context of conflicts over forest use, Valerie insists, \"The issues of respect are really key. in this.... A n d I always remember that... we're all trapped to some extent... and we can't lose our respect for humanity or for the people who ... maybe haven't started to think about the things we started to think about years ago.\" For Barbara, respect for differences is key to having a less fragmented community. A s she puts it, \"People would be able to be different but respect each others' differences and ... respect their different opinions.\" Some women spoke of respect as a two-way process influenced by the integrity, truthfulness, and respectfulness of the other. Linking respect and integrity, Merry comments, \"You can respect somebody operating from a base of integrity, even i f you're diametrically opposed to their position.\" Linking respect and truthfulness, Norleen explains her reluctance to trust industry and government men. A s she puts it, \"I just don't respect someone who doesn't tell me all the truth.\" Showing that respect can earn respect, Julie says of many of the men working with the Friends of Clayoquot Sound, \"They're basically really gentle, respectful guys and I have a lot of respect for them.\" In the context of destructive male behaviours among some of these men, however, several women emphasized the importance of reclaiming respect for women. A s Claudette puts it, \"I think women need to take back their respect!\" Applauding the women who challenged men's disrespect at government-led tables, Norleen comments, \"If there aren't women who are wi l l ing to go and to start exposing these men to a different way, we have a much longer struggle.\" Voic ing the sentiment of many of these women, Deb insists, \"People warrant respect whether they're men or women!\" 322 Consistent with a commitment to 'do no harm,' many of these women challenged violence in all its forms and advocated for the principle of nonviolence. A s Valerie puts it, \"I believe that violence begets violence and so it's absolutely useless to talk about a new vision and use tactics or processes in achieving aims which use some sort of violence.\" Voic ing her own anger at the destruction happening in the forests of Clayoquot Sound, she comments, \"I'm not at all a violent person. I have no desire to take it out in that way at all . I want to outsmart them.\" Explaining how she intends to do this, she continues, \"There is nothing that's emotionally inspiring or intellectually compelling about mowing down ancient forests. A n d the way that I can see working this, in getting my anger out, is by conveying to as many people as possible the ridiculousness of destroying what is inspiring, what can be inspiring in our lives!\" Committed to nonviolence, she and other women in the Friends have played a significant role in introducing nonviolent principles into all their actions. Explaining the reasoning behind this decision, Norleen comments, \"We want to help ... anyone who cares about this place and other places, open their minds to peaceful ways that attention can be brought to a situation so it can be changed.\" Julie explains the consequence of this decision, \"Everyone now that has joined the Friends in an action must take nonviolence training and consensus workshops to learn how to interact with a group of people and to make sure that everything we do is peaceful and respectful.\" Pointing to the thousands of people who \"rolled through the Peace Camp\" in 1993, she comments, \"That's quite an honourable thing that... every one of them received nonviolent training.\" Like many of these women, she believes that the nonviolent protests were key to the tremendous public support that the Friends received that summer. A s she explains, \"I think i f our actions had ever been violent, the public support would go right against us. I think when people have seen people everywhere from young rasta-head kids to 323 grandmothers standing on a road and everyone behaving ... peacefully and respectfully ... that has really affected the majority of the public.\" A s someone who facilitated many of the morning circles at the Peace Camp, Norleen speaks of the lessons learned. \"Violence is violence and that's one of the lessons that was being appreciated at Camp is that violence is not okay in any of its forms.\" One of these forms-male violence\u00E2\u0080\u0094was addressed directly within the Camp by creating a safe space for women. A s Valerie explains, \"If women didn't feel safe or comfortable, there was one place that they could go and that was their space only.\" In Norleen's mind, the introduction of nonviolence principles, along with feminist process, made the Peace Camp \"safe for anyone, not only women.\" Commenting on how people learned to take nonviolent action and to resolve conflicts peacefully, she concludes, \"It's heaps more subversive to teach peace ... and to teach peaceful ways to resolve things.\" Reflecting on the impact of nonviolence and feminist principles, Valerie concludes, \"I believe that we've really changed the face of environmental activism in Canada.\" While many of the women associated destructive ways of being with men, 'gentle' ways of being were often associated with women. In expressing concern about destructive and 'masculinist' ways of being, they often contrasted what they saw to be typically male and female ways of being: competitive-cooperative; disrespectful-respectful; confrontational/aggressive-peaceful; violent-nonviolent. In calling for 'gentle' ways of being, they often pointed to the positive contributions of women in promoting ways of being that are cooperative, respectful, and nonviolent. In challenging masculine competitiveness, Merry 324 exclaims, \"Men have to learn the value of cooperation and sharing. I mean women know it!\" Maryjka admits that women often play a peacekeeping role and reduce the confrontational energy of protests. A s she puts it, \"Women's kind of common sense and the lack of male aggression just brings the whole energy down and keeps things [peaceful].\" Some women argued that women's marginalization makes it easier to challenge culturally dominant values and ways of being. A s Valerie puts it, \"There's always an advantage to being marginalized from a destructive culture. Y o u can see where you want to get out of it and you can see how you step out of it too, cause you're not as caught.\" Reflecting on the large numbers of women active in grassroots environmentalism, Jan suggests that men may be more tied to the dominant definition of self-worth and success. A s she explains, \"I know there can be some fame in [environmentalism] but there's no money in it. It also occurred to me that perhaps men have bought into the whole success theory that you're making some more money before you're being productive and useful and successful. A n d that could be something that stops some men.\" Reflections. In calling for 'gentle' ways of being, these women place the self in the context of earth others, and support ways of being and relating that take the well-being of these others seriously. In doing so they provide concrete evidence that the seeds of the non-instrumental and relational self exist within the context of western culture. In sharing their efforts to introduce 'gentle' ways of being into their public activism, their stories suggest that the principles of cooperation, respect, and non-violence could be the beginnings of a ' l ife-325 affirming' public ethic of care that is capable of guiding our actions in the context of social conflict and real differences between humans. In reflecting on these principles, however, I would urge some critical thinking in coming to an understanding of what these principles would require of us. On the one hand, the association of these principles with women suggests that they reflect the underside of culturally dominant 'masculinist' ways of being. A s V a l Plumwood (1993, 64) argues, we need to affirm that which has been negated by patriarchal constructs and critically sift out notions of the feminine that have been \"shaped in subordination.\" On the other hand, the application of this public ethic of care in the context of culturally dominant values and inequitable economic and political structures raises concerns about the abuse of these principles by those who seek to protect the status quo. A s these women suggest in previous chapters, a public ethic of care that is capable of challenging the status quo needs to combine the principles of cooperation, respect, and non-violence with the notions of ecological integrity (Chapters 6 and 7), economic justice (Chapter 7) and political justice (Chapter 8) in order to encourage 'gentle' behaviours towards both human and nonhuman nature, male and female, and in all our differences. What Can Woman and Man Be? ... An Unfinished Conversation In associating men with destructive ways of being, and women with gentle ways of being, many of these women argued that there are often real differences between how men and women behave. In explaining these differences, they sometimes pointed to biological differences or spoke of the essential nature of men and women. Most, however, argued that 326 socialization plays a significant, i f not the most significant, role in shaping these differences. Several pointed to the family, and argued that mothers and fathers often raise their sons and daughters differently. Reflecting on her own upbringing, Merry explains the gendered nature of competition and cooperation, \"The girls in the family were required to share in the work in the house because we're all a family and we're all sort of supposed to contribute and help each other ... whereas men, boys are conditioned to be better than, stronger than, bigger than ... M e n are conditioned as children to become heroes and women are conditioned to be helpers.\" A s she and other women suggested, in the process of being socialized into different ways of being, men are trained to be dominant, women to be submissive. In reflecting on her own struggles to be assertive and speak out, Cori offers some insight into the influences that have shaped her, \"To identify one thing is pretty difficult, but I mean in the education system ... the difference that I saw between how our teachers reacted to girls and boys ... and there's the media ... and the images that we're constantly bombarded with\u00E2\u0080\u0094the perfect image and trying to attain the perfect body and pleasing a man ... A n d there was the way that I was brought up. Even though my mom is now a feminist... when I was 13 or so she gave me a book ... on how to behave as a woman with a man! Y o u know, don't talk too much, pretend you're interested when you're not... all that typical stereotyped roles of women! Critical o f the destructiveness of socialized gender roles, many of the women insisted on the importance of challenging both men's \"masculinist\" behaviours and the subordination of women. Arguing that both men and women have been harmed by patriarchal notions of what it means to be male and female, Catherine concludes, \"It's really hard to tell what women and men can be.\" 327 One thing that several women pointed out was that women and men can be different from the gender roles into which they have been socialized. Most of these women were anxious to point out that these culturally dominant patterns do not reflect the behaviours or experiences of all men and women. A few of the women pointed out that they have seldom been the target of male dominant behaviour. A s one of these women, Karen says, \"I have never felt discriminated against because I was a woman, with rare exceptions, [but] I'm not typical. I haven't been abused and I haven't had any horrible experiences.\" Some gave examples of women who are just as aggressive as men. Pointing to the confrontational and verbally abusive behaviour at one anti-environmentalist protest, Merry observes, \"The women have been ... every bit as involved,. . . roaring around and fingering environmentalists and so on, as the men have.\" Speaking of the behaviour of some women environmentalists, Maryjka says, \"I've seen just as much aggression, behind the scenes back-stabbing manoeuvring, lack of compassion as I've seen from men.\" Other women gave examples of men who bring a gentle energy to their activism. Admitting that there have been \"some hot-headed men\" at environmentalist protests, Maryjka insists,\"There've been very level-headed men as well , who do think out the consequences of actions. ... They're not aggressive and they're not confrontational.\" Noting the gentleness of some of the men she has worked with in the movement, Norleen says, \"I do feel quite lucky to be somewhat surrounded by men that are rebelling against what could be considered the norm of growing up to be a man.\" She comments on how liberating this has been for her, as a woman, \"There are ways to interact with each other without any kind of sexual intimidation or harassment or whatever ... and it's nice to let my guard down and to be myself.\" Having seen men change their 328 'masculinist' behaviours when challenged to do so, she comments, \"It's not intently our fault that we've been raised [this way] ... I think it's our responsibility to try and be aware of it and change it when it's needed.\" But as Catherine points out, in the context of oppression, change is not so easy. Pointing out that \"it is easier to fight your own oppression than to give up your privilege,\" she argues that it is much easier for women to challenge their subordination 'as women' than it is for men to give up their male privileges. A s a consequence, she explains, \"I think women have ... gotten closer to understanding who women can really be and it's a different kind of activity for men to discover that.\" Whether or not they called themselves feminists, many of these women pointed to the role that feminism has played in challenging culturally dominant notions of what men and women can be. Some spoke of how feminism has helped them to understand who they are, and who they can be, as women. Norleen feels that the feminist movement has made it \"easier [for women] to break away from what society expects of us.\" A s she explains, \"It seems there are more and more women awakening because more and more women are doing more and more work to awaken them ... We do have the power to say 'No.' ... I think more and more women are remembering, 'There is a different way!'\" Pointing to societal messages that says it's okay for men to dominate women, she continues, \"The feminism movement, for me, says it's not okay to treat women differently just because we're women, because we have different organs than you do!\" In volunteering their opinions on feminism, however, it became clear to me that there were different understandings of what feminism is about. Karen doesn't consider herself a feminist but supports \"a lot of things that feminism has battled for.\" Nevertheless, she considers it \"a costly battle.\" On the one hand, 329 she worries that feminism \"espouse[s] just one part of humanity at the expense of, or the leaving out of, the rest of it [and] that's not right!\" On the other hand, she worries that \"feminism is playing a part in taking the mother away from her babies.\" Affirming the importance of nurturing our children, she comments, \"I'm all for not having babies i f you don't want to, but i f you're gonna have them, then there's a responsibility that goes along with it. A n d the world would be a whole lot better off i f you can nurture those kids.\" Insisting that there are real differences between women and men, Catherine disagrees with feminists who deny these differences and seek equality for women within the existing culture. A s she explains, \"Women and men are different, right? ... But when we talk about equality, a lot of times I think we're talking about trying to make it all the same. A n d I don't think that feminism is about making sure that women get an equal piece of the pie in this culture. I think it's about changing the whole culture and the whole structure. It's about getting rid of the patriarchy, cause we can't... have an equal share in what goes on the way things are without becoming men ... or just like them.\" Deb worries that \"women have been put down for so long that they are going to try and show that they're better than men.\" Unwil l ing to claim a superior status for women, she says, \"This is a lot of the problem with the women's movement... they're trying to prove that they're better than men. Well they're not better than men. People aren't better than other people. ... Everyone's an individual. Everyone's a human being and each person has something to contribute to society and no one should be put down.\" Underlying women's different interpretations of feminism seemed to be a common thread ... the desire to be recognized and treated as fully human. A s Maryjka puts it, \"You're a human being, I'm a human being. ... Y o u happen to be a man, or you happen to be a woman, I don't really care one way or the other.\" A s their different interpretations of feminist reveal, however, what it means to be human, male and female, is an unfolding and unfinished 330 conversation. Reflections. In identifying socialization as a significant shaper of men's and women's behaviours, these women lend support to feminist concerns about patriarchal cultural institutions (eg. family, media, education) that \"have in common the differentiation of masculinity from femininity\" (Walby 1989, 227). Their stories suggest the need to challenge patriarchal cultural practices that continue to shape men's 'masculinist' ways of being and to subordinate women and the feminine to men and a culturally dominant masculinity. Keeping in mind the need to critically affirm female identities and notions of femininity constructed under patriarchy (Plumwood 1993, 63), these women also offer a socialization-based argument for why women have significant contributions to make in the promotion of 'gentle' ways of being. In sharing their experiences with aggressive women and 'gentle' men, they challenge the notion that 'gentle' ways of being are essential to women's nature and inaccessible to men, and suggest that men too have a role to play in promoting 'gentle' ways of being. Furthermore, their stories suggest that feminism has a significant role to play, both society-wide and in individual women's lives, in reconstructing our understanding of what it means to be human, male and female. Their differing interpretations of feminism, however, reveal both the tensions and differences within feminism and the challenge of reconstructing gender identities in the context of radically different feminist notions of what women and men can be. A s these women's own notions suggest, it is not difference between men and 331 women that is the problem, but the notions of superiority and inferiority embedded in them. Activism as a Way of Being and Becoming In explaining their activism, these women often described it not as an event but as a 'way of being responsive' to the world around them and true to their own values; and as a process of'becoming' changed and empowered. Many women spoke of how they have, over the years, responded to social and environmental issues that have arisen in the context of their lives. A s \"an active member of a small community,\" Maureen explains her willingness to act on environmental concerns, \"Part of it was just being active generally. ... I think that people who tend to be active and involved in one issue are more easily drawn into another.\" A long-time peace activist and trade unionist, Merry describes herself as someone who has been engaged in \"left-wing political activism most of my adult life ... I'd be involved in all kinds of things depending on where I was and what was happening.\" Seeing life as \"a constant struggle,\" she continues, \"We kid ourselves i f we think that there is a final solution to anything ... but [there's] a whole lot of satisfaction ... just simply in being involved in the constant struggle, feeling at least that you're participating!\" L ike several of the women, she emphasized the importance of each person engaging, in some way, in this 'constant struggle.' A s Julie puts it, \"We're all responsible for what's happening here and we're all responsible for making the changes that need to happen.\" Expanding on the call to be responsible, Claudette says, \"The word responsible is very interesting. It means 'able to respond,' which means take action! Do something!\" A s she continues, 332 \"We have to do a kazillion steps and everyone has their step to do and as long as they take the opportunity to be responsible and able to respond and do those actions ... it's just going to turn into a tidal wave sooner or later. A n d sooner is better.\" For many of these women, there is no one 'right' way to respond. Noting past divisiveness among activists in Tofino, Lorna emphasizes the importance of \"giving each other credit and respecting each other for the way in which we are working.\" As she puts it, \"We're all working towards the same goal in our own ways.\" Knowing that many of those who respond are doing so in the background, Norleen says, \"We need to acknowledge those that work alone just as much as those that work together because it's all helping.\" Several women described their activism as a way of being true to their own values. Some referred to their activism as part of their life's journey, or as a path that they're on. Describing her activism as \"a path that I'm walking down,\" Jan explains how it is part of her spirituality, \"I follow the faery tradition of wicca and a lot of that spirituality and connection to the earth is what brings me to environmental work, I think. It all came at the same time ... feeling my connection to the earth and my responsibility to protect and heal the earth.\" Norleen describes herself as \"one who's feeling good about coming closer to walking my own truth ... and l iving much more gently on the planet.\" Having come to environmental activism after a brief introduction to feminism and involvement in the animal rights movement, she speaks of the reverence for life that guides her activism, \"I can't call myself just an environmentalist or just a feminist or just an animal rights activist. It's like I'm a life activist or something ... because it all is connected and the behaviour changes are the same as far as looking within and finding a value system that doesn't k i l l everything is sight, that keeps a balanced reverence for life.\" 333 Describing her life commitment to \"put myself between the destroyer and my [animal] family,\" and her efforts to \"stop this path of destruction,\" Julie says of her activism, \"I know what path I'm on. I could have gone through life wondering i f I'm doing the right thing, and this feels right!\" At nineteen, A m y emphasizes the importance of finding your own truth and l iving by it. A s she puts it, \"If everybody was that tuned in and that close to their own truth, things would be a lot better in the world.\" Seeing truth as dynamic and evolving, she expresses her own desire to remain open to sensing truth. A s she puts it, \"That's my truth that I want to keep alive, that it's okay to change your mind.\" Several women spoke of how their activism as a process of personal transformation and empowerment. Some spoke of their activism as a journey of self-discovery. A s a teenager, this journey is just beginning for Amy . Describing herself as someone with \"really strong opinions about environmental issues and women's issues and racial issues,\" she speaks of her journey to discover \"the truth in what I am.\" A s she explains, \"As a teenager it's so easy to become engrossed in what everybody else is doing and what society is telling you to do and how to be and what to be ... I can't separate myself from what's affected me but I can ... find a balance between those pressures and what I really want to be. So that's what I've been trying to do.\" Merry describes this approach to activism as \"a strategy of self-realization as well as saving the world.\" Reflecting on some of women activists she knows, she comments, \"I would suspect that a lot of young women coming to feel. . . a sense of themselves as having power now ... are naturally drawn to the environmental movement as a way of expressing that 'I have the power to do something that is really good and really worth while. I am empowered ... and so I can use my power in this really good way!'\" Several women shared stories of how their activism has changed and empowered them. 334 Seeing herself as a committed member of the grassroots movement, Valerie says of her activism, \"I would say it's more than changed my life ... I would say that I keep evolving because the movement has been evolving and I'm going with it!\" Norleen says emphatically, \"It has profoundly changed me!\" \"I have to stop and think i f it hasn't changed my life in some way because it seems that as my awareness increases, it changes my life in so many ways! ... It's a big one to learn that you can challenge the system ... [And] one of the fun things about being involved too is, I can be who I want to be. A n d I like that!\" She adds, \"[I'm] happier because of it, l iking myself more and getting rid of the self-hater a bit more.\" A n d as Fiona describes it, \"I'm learning, I'm finding my power, I'm empowering myself, I'm finding my voice!\" Reflections. In describing their activism as a way of being responsive to the world around them, and in calling for all to be 'responsible,' these women challenge us to think about activism not as a series of isolated actions but as the ongoing responses of a self actively engaged with and concerned about the well-being of earth others. In sharing stories of both outward protests and inner transformations, they challenge the sharp divisions between public-private, political-personal, material-spiritual; and suggest that the engaged self can be a powerful vehicle for personal and cultural transformation. Their efforts to act in ways consistent with their values suggest that the engaged self can be both the outcome of, and the means by which we translate into action, internally held concerns and values. To the 335 extent that nonhuman nature is included in the web of moral concern, this notion of the engaged self supports ecocentric claims that it is through direct engagement with life that we cultivate an ecological consciousness and come to know how best to respond from the context of our lives (Berman 1990; Cheney 1987; Devall 1988; Naess 1989). In the context of felt connections to and concerns about the forests of Clayoquot Sound, these women's stories of self-discovery and empowerment suggest that it is in the process of challenging destructive ways of being that we can come to a deeper understanding of what it means to be human, and female, in the context of a nature to which we belong. 336 P A R T III R E F L E C T I O N S O N T H E R E S E A R C H FINDINGS 337 C H A P T E R 10 T H E SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS O F T H E R E S E A R C H FINDINGS Introduction In response to the call for a planning framework informed by environmental ethics, and to feminist concerns about the marginalization of women's insights and experiences from the processes by which we come to understand and respond to the environmental crisis, this research explored the subjective dimension of women's environmental activism in the context of growing concerns about the forests of Clayoquot Sound. The purpose of this research was three-fold: (a) to discover the critical insights that these particular women bring to their activism and the patriarchal barriers they face in the course of their activism; (b) to contribute to the development of an action-based ecofeminism; and (c) to contribute to the development of an ethics-based planning framework for sustainability. The purpose of this chapter is to reflect on the significance and implications of the research findings presented in Part II in light of these research purposes. 338 10.1 Critical Insights and Patriarchal Barriers Set in the context of growing concerns about the forests of Clayoquot Sound, the first purpose of this research was to explore the subjective dimension of women's environmental activism in order to discover both the critical insights they bring to their activism and the patriarchal barriers that they encounter in the course of their activism. To that end, I explored how these women framed their concerns and explained their activism, and their experiences, as environmentally concerned women, of trying to express and act on felt concerns. The research findings confirm that these particular women have critical insights to offer and that there are patriarchal barriers that frustrate, but do not totally constrain, their activism. While these research findings do not support the conclusion that all women share these critical insights, or that only women have these insights to offer, they do support the conclusion that (a) there are environmentally concerned and active women who have much to contribute to the processes by which we come to understand and respond to the environmental crisis, and (b) there are patriarchal constructs and structures that act to marginalize their contributions. The following are significant contributions that these women make to our understanding of environmental problems and women's environmental activism. The Importance of Connection to Place In sharing their sense of connection to the land and people of Clayoquot Sound, these women provide evidence of the importance of felt connections to 'place' as a source of 339 meaning and identity, as a source of 'knowing' about the well-being of the forests and their community, and as the source of activism born out of felt connections and growing concern. They also provide evidence that connection to place can play a significant role in shaping livelihood choices. In particular, their stories suggest that, when we begin from a sense of connection to place, and a longing to stay in place, we are much more open to the kinds of livelihoods and lifestyles that are possible within the limits and possibilities of the particular 'place' within which we find ourselves. What is important in these women's stories, I would argue, is the sense of connection to both social and ecological place and the subsequent concerns about both social and ecological fragmentation taking place in the region. In the absence of felt connections to both human and nonhuman nature, the danger is that the ecological well-being of'place' w i l l be ignored and even destroyed. In light of the urgent calls for action emerging from within the sustainability discourse, these research findings suggest that connection to place, and to nonhuman nature in particular, can play a significant role in increasing environmental concern and the willingness to act on this concern. In light of calls for the cultivation of an ecocentric culture, the findings suggest that connection to both social and ecological place can play a significant role in eliciting responses that consider the well-being of both human and nonhuman nature. The Local Expression of Global and Provincial Concerns 340 In sharing concerns arising out the context of their own region, community, and lived experiences, these women provide concrete examples of global and provincial concerns that are manifested in particular ways in a particular place and time. In the context of global deforestation and threatened provincial forests, they express concern about the ecological destruction taking place in the coastal temperate rainforests of Clayoquot Sound. In the context of a global forest industry and effective corporate control over provincial forests and public processes, they express concern about local industry practices that threaten sustainability in the region, and about local land use processes dominated by industry interests. In the context of global concerns about the impact of industrial forestry on indigenous peoples, and provincial aboriginal struggles for control over traditional territories, they express concern about the economic and political marginalization of Nuu-chah-nulth peoples in the region. In the context of the 'muscling out' of rural and indigenous women in the South, and in the provincial context of a male-dominated industry, they provide evidence of the lack of attention paid to women's livelihoods in the region, and of the marginalization of women from male-dominated processes defending men's jobs and the interests of a male-dominated forest industry. These global-provincial-local linkages encourage us to understand environmental concerns as 'nested' and complex problems that manifest in particular ways at global, provincial, and local levels of concern and in particular places and historical moments. This understanding challenges the universal-particular dualism that would privilege global and provincial concerns and solutions and dismiss the local as insignificant. Instead, we are 341 encouraged to see both the commonalities and the particularities manifested at each level of concern, and to seek solutions that are appropriate to the particular while contributing to the well-being of the whole. This understanding also challenges those who seek to address environmental problems in isolation from social, economic, and ethical concerns. In this case, we are encouraged to see the complex linkages between ecological destruction, corporate domination by the forest industry, threatened indigenous cultures, and the marginalization of women; and to pursue solutions that address these concerns in ways that are appropriate to the particular contexts within which they are manifested. Broad and Complex Frames This research began with a focus on women's environmental activism in the context of growing concerns about the forests of Clayoquot Sound. These women quickly broadened this focus to encompass social, environmental, economic, and ethical concerns. In framing their central concern as that of social and ecological fragmentation, they extend moral consideration to both human and nonhuman nature and to present and future generations, make links between local and global environmental concerns, and insist on the importance of addressing social, ecological, and environmental concerns together. In identifying unsustainable livelihoods and lifestyles, failed processes, and destructive ways of being as major sources of social and ecological fragmentation, they reveal the complex set of values and structures that need to be challenged in the course of addressing concerns about sustainability. In sharing their efforts to act on felt connections and concerns, they locate the 342 self in the context of this complex and dynamic set of social, economic, and ecological relationships. In calling for sustainable livelihoods for all , less materialistic lifestyles, inclusive community-based processes, and gentle ways of being, they introduce a vision of sustainability that considers these complex linkages and promotes the long-term well-being of both human and nonhuman nature. The broad and complex frames offered by these women contribute to an ecologically-informed understanding of the issues at hand, and to a deeper understanding of the complexity and extent of changes needed to adequately address these concerns. Consistent with the literature on sustainability, these women reveal a deep awareness of the complex linkages between environmental, economic, and social concerns and of the need for solutions that promote long term sustainability and both intra- and inter-generational equity. Consistent with the ecocentric literature, their experiences reveal the complex set of culturally dominant values and structures that those who struggle for sustainability have to confront. A Cultural Critique From Within In framing their concerns and explaining their activism, these women provide insight into the complex set of culturally dominant values and structures that act to protect the status quo (what is), and suggest a normative foundation for sustainability (what ought to be). Table 2 below provides an overview of the cultural critique offered by these women. 343 Table 2--A Cultural Critique of What Is and What Ought To Be (a) The Nature of Change in the Region WHAT IS WHAT OUGHT TO BE The Direction of Change Toward Fragmentation \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Ecological and social fragmentation is fast destroying the 'place' 1 call home, and threatens long-term sustainability in the region Toward Connection and Wholeness \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to stop the fragmentation of 'place' and move toward ecological, social, and personal wholeness Ecosystem Changes \u00E2\u0080\u00A2The fragmentation of ecosystems (and forests in particular) threatens the ecological basis of life and livelihoods, and destroys that which gives meaning to our lives \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to protect and restore the ecosystems that sustain human and nonhuman life and bring meaning to our lives; and to reconnect humans with nonhuman nature Changes in the Community \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Growing cultural rifts and land use conflicts destroy a sense of community, keep us divided, and make it difficult for those who challenge the status quo to express and act on felt concerns \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to heal cultural rifts with First Nations, heal relations in and between communities, and bridge gaps with industry workers The Concerned Self \u00E2\u0080\u00A2The concerned self is torn between care for self, the forests and human others; the concerned female self between care for children and the forests \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to care for and heal the self in order to care effectively for others (b) The Nature of the Economy WHAT IS WHAT OUGHT TO BE The Nature of Livelihoods and Lifestyles Unsustainable Livelihoods & Lifestyles \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Unsustainable livelihoods and lifestyles contribute significantly to ecological and social fragmentation in the region Gentle Livelihoods & Lifestyles \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to create gentle livelihoods and lifestyles that will enable us to sustain ourselves without destroying the planet 344 Livelihoods \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Unsustainable industries, and the forest industry in particular, destroy the ecological basis of life and livelihoods and threaten community stability and well-being \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Few positive economic alternatives exist \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need a diversity of sustainable livelihoods (including a 'gentler forestry') that protect and enhance ecological and community well-being, and that enable us to earn a living doing work that is necessary, meaningful and life-enhancing Lifestyles \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Materialistic lifestyles encourage us to consume beyond what the earth can sustain \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to reduce consumption and adopt lifestyles that the earth can sustain Limits and Possibilities \u00E2\u0080\u00A2A jobs vs environment forest debate ignores social sustainability and ecological limits, and defends industry profits, jobs, and materialistic lifestyles at the expense of the forests, communities, and the livelihoods of countless others \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Social and ecological well-being are linked and need to be addressed together in developing economic options that contribute to long-term sustainability \u00E2\u0080\u00A2The possibilities for gentle livelihoods and lifestyles exist within the ecological and social limits of the region. Women's Livelihoods \u00E2\u0080\u00A2A gender-blind jobs vs environment debate defends a male-dominated industry and men's high-paying jobs and ignores women's lives and livelihoods \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need sustainable livelihoods for all (male and female, present and future generations) not short-term jobs for a few Control of the Economy \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Corporate control over the forests and the economy makes it difficult to move forward with positive economic alternatives \u00E2\u0080\u00A2First Nations and non-aboriginal communities need to regain control over the local economy and create sustainable community-based economic alternatives (c) The Nature of Decision-Making WHAT IS WHAT OUGHT TO BE The Nature of Land Use Processes Failed Processes \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Land use processes have failed to adequately address concerns about social and ecological fragmentation in the region Community-Based Processes \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need community-based processes where we can come together to address concerns about long-term sustainability 345 Participation \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Top-down processes are dominated by government and industry and by the short-term interests of the forest industry; these processes are closed to the ecological, social, and economic concerns of countless others (eg. First Nations, tourism, environment) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need inclusive and broad-based processes committed to long-term sustainability and open to a diversity of perspectives and to ecological, social, and economic concerns Women's Participation \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Land use processes have been dominated by men and the interests of a male-dominated forest industry and closed to the ecological, social, and economic concerns of women on the political and economic margins \u00E2\u0080\u00A2It is essential that women participate in these processes; they often bring different and critical insights and other ways of 'knowing' to the table, contribute to better process, and are more willing to challenge the status quo \u00E2\u0080\u00A2The voices of women and other marginalized peoples must be heard Relevant Knowledge \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Scientific and expert knowledge dominate these processes; there is little room for emotion \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Science is just one way of knowing. Personal experience^ emotion and intuition are important sources of knowledge How Decisions Are Made \u00E2\u0080\u00A2'Efficient' processes pressure for quick responses to short-term crises and provide little time or space for genuine participation and long-term planning \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Decision-making mechanisms, such as voting, produce quick decisions that protect the status quo and generate conflict \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need processes open to genuine participation and committed to producing fair and considered decisions in favour of long-term sustainability \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Decision-making mechanisms, such as consensus, provide the time and forum for all to speak and be heard, to resolve conflicts peacefully, and to arrive at decisions that all can live with Speaking and Listening \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Hierarchical processes permit the powerful to speak and silence others \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Dominating male behaviours make it difficult for women to speak and be heard within both land use processes and environmental organizations \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Feminist process (non-hierarchical, cooperative, consensus decision-making) creates the space for everyone-both men and women\u00E2\u0080\u0094to speak and be heard 346 (d) Dominant Values and Ways of Being WHAT IS WHAT OUGHT TO BE Nature of the Culture A Destructive Culture \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We live in a violent and destructive culture A Gentle and Loving Culture \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to transform this culture into a gentle and loving one Underlying Values Destructive Values \u00E2\u0080\u00A2A human arrogance makes us think that we have the right to use nonhuman nature in whatever way we want to; logging practices are a prime example \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Materialistic values keep us aspiring to lifestyles that will never make us happy, devalues those who don't have money, and justify the destruction of the forests Life-Affirming Values \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to value all life in the forests and acknowledge the life-sustaining role of intact forest ecosystems \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to affirm non-material values (eg. time for self, others, and to just 'be') that bring meaning and quality to our lives, and make choices that are in line with these values \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Society says it's okay for men to dominate women \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to value the worth of everyone, male and female; we're all human beings! Ways of Being and Relating Destructive Ways of Being \u00E2\u0080\u00A2This culture encourages people to be competitive, dominating, disrespectful, confrontational, and violent Gentle Ways of Being \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Cooperation, respect, and nonviolence are important principles to live by, and encourage 'gentle' ways of being and relating \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to treat everyone with respect (other species, First Nations, women, those with different opinions) Gendered Ways of Being \u00E2\u0080\u00A2It is most often (but not always) men who display these destructive ways of being; it is most often (but not always) women who display 'gentle' ways of being \u00E2\u0080\u00A2As a woman, I experience this male behaviour from men defending the forest industry and from fellow activists \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Men are trained to be dominant, women to be submissive \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Both men and women are capable of being 'gentle' \u00E2\u0080\u00A2We need to challenge both men's destructive behaviours and women's subordination, and encourage gentle ways of being on the part of both \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Feminism has an important role to play in challenging dominant notions of what men and women can be 347 In describing \"what is,\" these women provide insight into the complex web of values and structures that protect the short-term interests of the forest industry at the expense of long-term sustainability in the region. They also provide evidence of the patriarchal nature of these values and structures. In prescribing what \"ought to be,\" they urge us to challenge culturally dominant values and structures in general, and patriarchal values and structures in particular. In calling for sustainable livelihoods for all , less materialistic lifestyles, inclusive processes, and gentle ways of being and relating to self and earth others, they offer a vision that considers the well-being of both human and nonhuman nature, male and female; and that seeks to meet livelihood needs within the social and ecological limits and possibilities of the region. This vision fundamentally challenges the complex of culturally dominant values and structures that benefit a male-dominated industry at the expense of women, the forests, and First Nations and non-aboriginal communities in the region. In sharing these critical insights and their efforts to express and act on them, these women provide evidence that the 'seeds' of cultural transformation exist on the margins of western culture, and that environmentally concerned women such as these have important contributions to make to how we understand and respond to the environmental crisis. In sharing their efforts to move towards what \"ought to be,\" however, these women also reveal some of the challenges facing those who seek to transform their own culture. Their struggles with internalized materialist values, confrontational behaviours, and their own socialization as women remind us that those who challenge their own culture are not disembedded from it. A s members of western culture, we are all , to varying degrees, shaped by culturally dominant 348 values and structures. Knowing this, it is important to adopt a self-reflexive and critical stance so as to avoid reproducing that which we seek to transform. Without denying the difficulties of doing so, the fact that these women are challenging and resisting the dominant values and structures of their own culture suggests that, although we are shaped by the dominant culture within which we live, we are not constrained totally by it. The challenge, I would argue, is to learn to see the 'seeds' of cultural transformation that exist within western culture, and to critically affirm and support the flourishing of this potential. The research findings suggest, and these women insist, that it is essential that we learn to see and critically support the flourishing of this potential among women who offer critical insights and contributions from the economic, political, and cultural margins. The Engaged Female Self While the research findings confirm the critical insights and contributions that these women have to offer, they also provide insight into the experiences of the female self engaged in challenging ecological destruction in the context of patriarchal values and structures. In doing so, this research supports, expands on, and challenges previous research on women's environmental activism; and confirms, but tempers, feminist concerns about patriarchal barriers that environmentally concerned and active women face in the course of their activism. 349 A s in previous research, this research reveals the critical contributions that environmentally active women such as these are making to the consciousness and structure of the grassroots environmental movement. Consistent with previous findings, these women bring social and environmental concerns together, introduce principles of social justice, challenge undemocratic public processes and corporate power, contribute to the democratization of their organization and environmental protests, challenge the domination of scientific and expert knowledge, and place values and moral concerns at the centre of their activism. A s in previous studies, these women have experienced, over the course of their activism, both the patriarchal attitudes and behaviours of government and corporate men and fellow activists and the personal transformation and empowerment that comes with being actively engaged in environmental struggles. In addition, this research expands and challenges previous understandings of women's environmental activism. B y exploring women's activism in the context of growing concerns about the forests, this research provides insight into these women's relations with nonhuman nature. In particular, this research (a) reveals the importance of felt connections to nonhuman nature as sources of these women's environmental concerns and knowing, (b) suggests that relationships with nonhuman nature offer these women, and potentially all of us, the opportunity to explore what it means to be human, and female, outside of culturally defined identities, and (c) reveals some of the particular ways in which these women connect with life\u00E2\u0080\u0094both human and nonhuman\u00E2\u0080\u0094 through the female body. Most significantly, this research reveals the difference between deeply felt concerns and the ability and willingness to act on them. A s this research shows, while the potential to give birth can be a powerful source of connection to and concern for 350 life on this planet, the social responsibilities of motherhood can make it difficult for women to act on their concerns. Most of the highly visible activists in this case were single and had no children; those with children had less time and energy for, and were less wi l l ing to take the risks associated with frontline activism. These findings suggest that framing women's environmental activism as an extension of traditional gender roles is too narrow. A s an alternative framing, I would suggest that it is the sense of care and responsibility born out of felt connections that motivates their activism. In the context of toxic wastes, women's activism could be explained as an expression of the care and responsibility born out of felt connections to their children. Where environmental concerns involve felt connections to nonhuman nature (such as the forests), having to make moral choices between caring for their children and nonhuman nature is the dilemma that many women face in the context of a gendered division of labour that disproportionately assigns the care of children to women. That the mothers in this research found other ways to be active is both testimony to the depth of their concerns and a reminder that we need to look beyond environmental organizations and frontline protests to fully understand and appreciate the nature of women's environmental activism. While all of the women in this research shared a deep concern for the forests, they chose to respond in ways that best fit the circumstances of their lives (e.g. health, age, other responsibilities, skills). Wi th many women working quietly in the background, we need to expand our understanding of women's environmental activism and learn to recognize and support the contributions of less visibly active but equally concerned women. 351 The research findings also support, but temper, feminist concerns about the role that patriarchal values and structures play in marginalizing women's critical insights and contributions. In particular, this research provides insight into the experiences of environmentally concerned women constrained and marginalized by traditional gender roles (i.e. motherhood), a male-dominated forest industry, male-dominated land use processes, 'masculinist' behaviours from industry defenders and fellow activists, and patriarchal notions of what it means to be human. At the same time, these women's continued activism in the face of these patriarchal barriers, and their personal and political resistance to destructive male behaviours, provide evidence that these women are not totally shaped and constrained by patriarchy, and that feminism has an important role to play in supporting women's environmental activism. What became clear over the course of this research was the depth to which feminism has informed and supported many of these women both in their personal lives and in their activism. While previous research on women's environmental activism noted the similarities between toxic waste organizing and early feminist principles, this research reveals the explicit introduction, by many of these women, of feminist principles into their organization and activism. In doing so, it raises questions as to whether it is 'as women' or 'as feminists' that women are transforming their environmental organizations and the movement. What also became clear to me over the course of this research is the lack of feminist attention that has been paid to the broader political and economic structures that these women confront in the course of their environmental activism. In particular, these women's efforts to express and act on their concerns in the context of land use processes dominated by men and a male-dominated industry suggest the need for feminist challenges to 352 economic and political structures that perpetuate both ecological destruction and the political and economic marginalization of women. Furthermore, these women's concerns about the marginalization of First Nations peoples, non-industry interests, and the livelihoods of countless others in the region suggest the need to locate these feminist challenges in the context of broader struggles against inequitable structures that privilege a few at the expense of countless others. 10.2 Toward an Action-Oriented Ecofeminism The second purpose of this research was to reflect on the critical insights and experiences of these environmentally active women in order to contribute to the development of an action-based ecofeminism. I would like to propose the following as contributions to such a framework. Beyond the Ideal Ecological Self For the most part, ecofeminists have tended to focus on the ideal relational self engaged in noninstrumental relations of care and responsibility with earth others. While these philosophical inquiries contribute to our understanding of what it means to be human, male and female, in the context of a nature to which we belong, I would argue that they do not provide sufficient guidance for how this ecological self is to be cultivated out of the present cultural context. In expressing a sense of care and responsibility born of felt 353 connections to the land and people of Clayoquot Sound, and to the forests in particular, these women provide evidence that the potential for noninstrumental relations with nonhuman nature exists within western culture. In explaining their activism, however, they provide evidence that this potential is contained within relational selves caught in a tangle of relationships: some of these relationships act to frustrate and constrain the realization of this potential, others support and nurture it. To be effective, an action-based ecofeminism needs to be grounded firmly in the context of existing relationships, understand the nature of these relationships, and respond in ways that support the flourishing of the ecological self, male and female. While ecofeminists call for a contextual understanding of how best to care for earth others, an action-oriented ecofeminism begins with the understanding that this context is far from ideal, and that actions must be appropriate to the particular contexts, circumstances, and relationships within which we find ourselves. In this research, women provided insight into the relational self embedded in the context of (a) relationships of care and responsibility, (b) fragmenting and fragmented relationships, and (c) relations of domination. To the extent that we find ourselves engaged in relationships of care and responsibility with earth others, an action-oriented ecofeminism encourages the cultivation and nurturing of these relationships. In particular, it supports both men and women to engage in noninstrumental relations with human and nonhuman nature; and encourages both to share in the care of children so that men and women can act on felt connections and concerns for human and nonhuman life on this planet. A t the same time, an action-oriented ecofeminism recognizes that, in the context of a number of such relationships 354 of care and responsibility, there are always moral choices to be made about how, and who to care for, and the need to balance care for the self with care for earth others. To the extent that we find ourselves in the context of fragmenting and fragmented relationships, an action-oriented ecofeminism seeks to stop the fragmentation of felt connections to human and nonhuman others, and pursues strategies that move us towards ecological, social, and personal wholeness. In the context of cultural rifts and social conflicts, these strategies seek to bridge gaps and heal divisions rather than increase social fragmentation and polarization. To the extent that we find ourselves engaged in relations of domination, an action-oriented ecofeminism encourages and pursues strategies of personal and collective resistance to domination in all its forms, and challenges those in positions of power-over to relinquish privileges gained at the expense of earth others. A t the same time, an action-oriented ecofeminism recognizes that resistance alone is an insufficient response to domination, and encourages the creation of real alternatives to unsustainable livelihoods and lifestyles, ineffective decision-making processes, and destructive ways of being and relating. Toward a Public Ethic of Care In expressing concern for the land and people of Clayoquot Sound, and in calling for gentle livelihoods, lifestyles, and ways of being, these women express an ethic of care and responsibility that takes seriously the well-being of earth others. In sharing their efforts to express and act on this privately held ethic, however, these women reveal the difficulties of doing so in the absence of a public morality committed to the well-being of both human and 355 nonhuman nature. In this case, these women express their frustrations with culturally dominant values that privilege the pursuit of competitive self-interest at the expense of earth others, tolerates destructive and 'masculinist' behaviours towards those challenging the status quo, and legitimizes inequitable economic and political structures that are closed to nonmaterialistic values, ecological sensibilities, and ethical concerns. Without dismissing the importance of a privately held ethic of care, an action-oriented ecofeminism recognizes the need to promote a public ethic of care that w i l l support the full expression of noninstrumental sensibilities and relationships. In challenging the injustice and destructiveness of the culturally dominant public morality, these women introduce principles that could serve as the beginnings of a public ethic of care that includes both human and nonhuman nature in the domain of moral concern. In particular, their stories suggest the principles of ecological integrity, economic and political justice, cooperation, respect, and nonviolence as the beginnings of a public ethic of care that encourages 'gentle' ways of being and relating to human and nonhuman nature, male and female, and in all our differences. Unlike a privately held ethic of care, this public ethic does not require of us that we care intimately for each other, only that we open ourselves to the felt concerns of others, and that we hold one another accountable for actions that affect the well-being of earth others. In the context of social conflicts and real differences, such a public ethic of care could be the beginnings of a 'life-affirming' ethic capable of healing fragmented relationships and guiding our actions and collective decisions towards long-term social, economic, and ecological wel l -being. 356 In pursuing the development of such a public ethic of care, however, an action-oriented ecofeminism calls for critical reflection in coming to an understanding of what these principles would require of us. The association of the principles of cooperation, respect, and nonviolence with women and the feminine suggests the need to both affirm and critically reflect on these principles in order to sift out patriarchal notions embedded within them. The application of these principles in the context of hierarchical constructs and inequitable structures reminds us that we need to guard against the abuse of these principles by those who seek to protect the status quo. The quagmire of moral relativism and cooptation by the powerful are real risks that need to be addressed in promoting and coming to a deeper understanding of this public ethic of care. Linking Constructs and Structures The women in this research uncovered and challenged a number of hierarchical dualisms shaping economic and political thought and perpetuating social and ecological fragmentation in the region (eg. human-'nature,' mind-body, economy-ecology, public-private, male-female, material-nonmaterial). In doing so, they provide concrete evidence to support ecofeminist claims that conceptual frameworks serve to rationalize the exploitation and domination of both human and nonhuman nature, and women in particular. In linking these constructs to unsustainable economic practices, undemocratic processes, and destructive ways of being, they locate these constructs in the context of inequitable and patriarchal structures. These linkages encourage us to understand hierarchical and patriarchal 357 constructs and structures as a complex whole that works together to rationalize and reproduce ecological destruction, social inequities, and patriarchy. To be effective, an action-based ecofeminism needs to understand these complex linkages and to challenge both constructs and structures. Although ecofeminists have been challenging patriarchal constructs that privilege masculinist and hierarchical notions of the self, an action-based ecofeminism challenges both these constructs and the economic, political, and cultural structures within which they are embedded. Together, these constructs and structures legitimize and reproduce ecologically and socially destructive economic activities, lifestyles, decision-making processes, and ways of being and relating to earth others. While these constructs and structures serve the short-term interests of the status quo, and men in particular, they do so at the expense of nonhuman nature, women, First Nations peoples, and future generations, and threaten long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability in the region. Another implication for an action-oriented ecofeminism is the impossibility of attributing the environmental crisis, and all forms of oppression, to patriarchy. While the women in this study provide evidence of patriarchal constructs and structures, they also reveal the economic and political marginalization of First Nations peoples, environmentally concerned men and women, and non-industry workers, and acknowledge the vulnerabilities of those dependent on an unsustainable forest industry for their livelihood. In understanding and challenging this complex web of constructs and structures, an action-based ecofeminism 358 promotes nonhierarchical constructs and equitable structures that reproduce and legitimize ways of thinking and acting that enable all of nature, male and female, and in all our differences, to flourish. A s part of this larger ecofeminist project, the research findings suggest that there is the need to challenge: patriarchal economic structures that marginalize women's livelihoods and work; political structures that marginalize women and their concerns; 'masculinist' behaviours, and male violence in particular, that serve to keep women in their place both as women and as humans concerned about life on this planet; and cultural institutions that continue to reproduce culturally dominant notions of what it means to be human and female. Supporting the Emergence of Women's Voices From the Margins In explaining the importance of women's participation in addressing concerns about long-term sustainability, the women in this study offered explanations grounded in the lived realities of many women's daily lives, and provided concrete examples of the positive contributions they and other women are already making to sustainability. In doing so, they support ecofeminist claims that women have important contributions to make to the resolution of the environmental crisis without falling into the trap of claiming for all women the status of'angel in the ecosystem' (Plumwood 1993, 9) and denying to all men their capacity to share in the process. The explanations that these women offer have implications for an action-oriented ecofeminism. 359 In explaining their activism, many of the women spoke of experiencing, through the female body, felt connections and growing concerns about human and nonhuman life on this planet. Without denying men's capacity for bodily connections, their stories suggest that there are particular ways in which women experience their connections to earth others as embodied and female selves. Knowing this, an action-oriented ecofeminism supports embodied connections with earth others and challenges patriarchal constructs and structures that constrain women's real bodily engagement in life. In arguing that women are often more wil l ing to challenge unsustainable economic practices that few benefit from, and in affirming the positive livelihoods and lifestyles that they and other women are creating and defending on the economic margins, these women suggest that women's lived economic realities can be the source of both critical perspectives and creative solutions; and that economic independence makes it easier to assume this critical and creative stance. Knowing this, an action-oriented ecofeminism challenges the marginalization of women's livelihoods and supports women to secure economic independence through the creation of gentle livelihoods and lifestyles. In challenging women's political marginalization, the women in this study suggest that marginalized women often bring different perspectives that reflect real differences in the lives and economic realities of men and women; are often more wil l ing to bring values, issues, and ways of knowing that challenge the status quo; and often contribute to better process. In doing so, they suggest that politically marginalized women have important substantive and procedural contributions to make to the processes by which we come to 360 understand and resolve environmental problems. Knowing this, an action-oriented ecofeminism challenges women's political marginalization and supports women to bring these critical contributions to the table. In associating women with gentle ways of being, and in identifying socialization as a significant shaper of behaviours, they suggest that women have significant contributions to make to the promotion of gentle ways of being because of their socialization. Their stories of'gentle' men and 'aggressive' women challenge the notion that these gentle ways of being are essential to women's nature and inaccessible to men. Knowing this, an action-oriented ecofeminism challenges culturally dominant gender identities and supports gentle ways of being on the part of both men and women. Ultimately, an action-oriented ecofeminism supports both women and men to engage actively in resisting ecological and social fragmentation, in creating gentle livelihoods and lifestyles, and in promoting gentle ways of being and relating so that all may thrive. 10.3 Toward an Ethics-Based Planning for Sustainability The third purpose of this research was to reflect on the research findings in order to contribute to the development of an ethics-based planning for sustainability. I began this research by asking how planning can best respond to the deepening environmental crisis, and by proposing the beginnings of an ethics-based planning framework consistent with an ecocentric perspective. In this chapter, I return to the ethics-based planning framework proposed in Chapter 2 and ask what the women in this study have to teach us. In Chapter 2,1 argued that an ethics-based planning that is consistent with an ecocentric perspective: (a) 361 challenges the dominant values and structures of western industrial culture; (b) contributes to the cultivation of an ecocentric culture committed to the well-being of human and nonhuman nature; (c) assumes a participatory stance; and (d) is open to all knowledge and ways of knowing that can help us to better understand and appropriately respond to the environmental crisis before us. This ethics-based planning encourages the active engagement of all in translating all relevant ways of knowing and ecocentric sensibilities into actions that sustain the well-being of human and nonhuman life on this planet. The implication of the research findings are that there is the need for an ethics based planning that: (a) challenges the patriarchal nature of culturally dominant values and structures; (b) contributes to the cultivation of an ecocentric culture in which all of nature, human and nonhuman, male and female, can thrive; (c) assumes a participatory and emancipatory stance that extends to women and other marginalized peoples; and (d) recognizes women and other marginalized peoples as legitimate 'knowers.' The cultural critique offered by these women in Table 2 above offers some insight into what this ethics-based planning \"ought\" to look like. Drawing on their visions of \"what ought to be,\" I would like to propose the following as the normative beginnings of an ethics-based planning for sustainability: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A n ethics-based planning for sustainability is committed to stopping the ecological and social fragmentation of 'place,' and adopts strategies that move us towards ecological, social, and personal wholeness. In doing so, an ethics-based planning places the ecological and social integrity of 'place' at the centre of moral concern and 362 contributes to the well-being of all who live there\u00E2\u0080\u0094human and nonhuman, male and female, and in all our differences; \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Within the limits and possibilities of the particular places within which we find ourselves, an ethics-based planning supports efforts to create sustainable livelihoods for all , male and female; and encourages the adoption of gentle lifestyles that the earth can sustain; \u00E2\u0080\u00A2In response to felt ecological, social, economic, and ethical concerns, an ethics-based planning provides the time and the forum to produce fair and considered decisions in favour of long-term sustainability. Inclusive and broad-based processes, and mechanisms such as consensus, provide the space for all to speak and be heard, to resolve conflicts, and to arrive at decisions that all can live by; \u00E2\u0080\u00A2As a participatory and emancipatory process, an ethics-based planning provides the space for marginalized voices in general, and for the critical insights and contributions of women in particular; \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Underlying this ethics-based planning are life-affirming, non-materialistic, and non-patriarchal values that affirm the intrinsic worth of all life, human and nonhuman, male and female, and in all our differences; and that encourage 'gentle' ways of being and relating to earth others; \u00E2\u0080\u00A2As the process by which we come to understand and respond to environmental problems, an ethics-based planning is guided by, and helps to reinforce, a public ethic based on the principles of ecological integrity, economic and political justice, 363 cooperation, respect, and nonviolence towards all of life\u00E2\u0080\u0094human and nonhuman, male and female, and in all our differences; \u00E2\u0080\u00A2Ultimately, this ethics-based planning shares the same goal as an action-oriented ecofeminism. It supports the active engagement of both men and women in resisting social and ecological fragmentation, in creating gentle livelihoods and lifestyles that the earth can sustain, and in promoting gentle ways of being and relating to earth others. A s women's descriptions of \"what is\" remind us, however, we begin the development of this ethics-based planning from within the context of culturally dominant values and structures that act to protect the status quo and perpetuate social and ecological fragmentation. Consequently, an ethics-based planning that is committed to moving towards ecological, social, and personal wholeness involves struggles against both external structures and internally held values. The framework for exploring this power-sensitive process is presented in Figure 2 below. I have chosen to represent this process as a spiral that begins with external struggles over who participates in the processes by which we come to understand and respond to environmental problems (representation) and that deepens to include struggles with internally held values that participants bring to the table. A s such, an ethics-based planning links the personal and the political and contributes to both structural and personal transformation. Drawing on the experiences of the women in this research, I would like to suggest that an ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve struggles around the following: 364 Figure 2-Ethics-Based Planning for Sustainability: The External and Internal Dimensions of a Power-Sensitive Process Structures 365 Representation (Who Sits at the Table) Decisions about representation influence who gets to participate in the processes by which we come to understand and respond to environmental concerns. In this research, women challenged 'talk and log' land use processes dominated by government and corporate elites, defenders of the forest industry, and men. Arguing that these top-down processes serve to protect the status quo, and the interests of the forest industry in particular, they called for inclusive community-based processes open to broad representation and diverse interests and perspectives; and insisted on the full participation of women and other marginalized peoples. The marginalization of Tofino, First Nations, non-industry, and environmental interests, and the struggles to secure a seat for tourism at the table, suggest that in the context of undemocratic and patriarchal processes, ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve struggles over who sits at tables where environmental decisions are made. Frames (What Gets Talked About) Getting to the table does not guarantee a legitimate place on the agenda for all concerns and interests represented. How decisions are framed (i.e. agenda, mandate, terms of reference) shapes what gets talked about at tables mandated to address issues of sustainability. In this research, women challenged land use processes narrowly framed around the short-term economic interests of a male-dominated forest industry, and closed to the social, environmental, and livelihood concerns of countless others, and to women's 366 concerns and livelihoods in particular. Arguing that these frames protect narrow economic interests at the expense of long-term sustainability, and frustrate efforts to address the issues at hand, they called for, and offered, broad frames encompassing social, economic, ecological, and ethical concerns. In challenging the co-optation of processes formally mandated to develop a sustainability strategy, and in struggling to get tourism and other concerns on the table, they suggest that, in the context of inequitable political and economic power, ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve ongoing struggles over what gets talked about in decision-making processes. Rules of Process (How decisions are made) Rules of process establish the formal mechanisms by which interests and perspectives are represented and decisions get made. In this research, women challenged efficient decision-making processes that produce quick decisions and provide neither the forum nor the time to adequately represent and fairly consider ethical concerns, long-term issues, and differing and conflicting perspectives represented at the table. Arguing that these efficient processes protect the status quo, discourage genuine participation, fuel conflicts, and keep tables reacting to short-term issues at the expense of long-term sustainability, they favoured mechanisms, such as consensus, that provide both the space for all to speak and be heard, and the time to arrive at fair and considered decisions that w i l l reduce social and ecological fragmentation. Their efforts to introduce feminist process into their activism in response to hierarchical and \"masculinist' processes that permit a few, and men in particular, to dominate 367 suggest that an ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve struggles over how decisions are made. Knowing (What knowledge is relevant) Within the rules of process that determine how decisions get made are assumptions about what knowledge is relevant to the decisions at hand. In this research, women challenged processes privileging narrow scientific and economic knowledge and closed to other knowledge (e.g. social, ecological) and ways of knowing (e.g. intuition, emotion, experience). Arguing that this narrow rationality serves the interests of the status quo, and the forest industry in particular, and blinds us to important truths, they affirmed the importance of both internal and external sources of knowledge in coming to a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. Their struggles to honour deeply held truths in the context of conflicting scientific and expert claims, and their struggles to speak these truths in the context of industry dominated and conflict-generating tables, suggest that ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve struggles over what knowledge and ways of knowing are relevant to the decisions at hand. Voice (Speaking and Listening) Processes that create the space for all to speak and are open to all ways of knowing about the issues at hand, do not guarantee that the holders of this knowledge w i l l dare to 368 speak or that others w i l l listen when they do. In this research, women shared their inner struggles to speak out in public, particularly in the context of social conflicts and men who don't listen. In doing so, they revealed an inner dimension of process that makes some reluctant to speak and others unwilling to listen. In particular, they revealed internalized notions of the knowing self that serve to privilege the voices and knowledge of a dominant few, and men in particular. Their stories suggest that ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve struggles over who are legitimate knowers and speakers, and concerted efforts to support marginalized knowers to speak and dominant voices to listen. Ways of Being and Relating Ways of being and relating to others at tables designed to address environmental concerns influence our ability to work together to come to fair and considered decisions that w i l l promote social and environmental sustainability. In this research, women challenged destructive and 'masculinist' ways of being permeating their culture and directed towards them by defenders of the forest industry, and by men in particular. Arguing that these ways of being are socially and environmentally harmful and serve to silence those who challenge the status quo, they called for gentle ways of being and relating; and emphasized the importance of respect in the context of real difference and growing social conflicts. Their own struggles to change learned behaviours suggest that ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve both external and internal struggles to challenge and transform culturally dominant ways of being. 369 Values Culturally dominant and internally held values affect how we think and act, and influence both the concerns and visions we bring to the process and way we relate to others at the table. In this research, women challenged anthropocentric, materialistic, and patriarchal values embedded in land use processes defending the short-term economic interests and practices of the forest industry, materialistic lifestyles, and men's jobs and high wages. Arguing that these values promote unsustainable livelihoods and lifestyles and legitimize destructive and 'masculinist' behaviours in defence of the status quo, they called for life-affirming values that recognize the intrinsic worth of all life, male and female, and nonmaterial values; and called for gentle livelihoods, lifestyles, and ways of being and relating. A s they suggest, there is the need for values-based planning, but not just any values w i l l do. Their struggles to voice these sensibilities at the table, and their struggles with internalized consumer values, suggest that ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve both external struggles to give voice to privately held 'life-affirming' values, and internal struggles to transform the internalized values of our dominant culture. A Public Ethic A public ethic reflects the public morality of a society and defines what is culturally and morally acceptable. In this research, women located land use processes in the context of a public ethic that privileges the pursuit of competitive self-interest over ethical, social, and 370 environmental concerns; tolerates destructive and 'masculinist' behaviours; and legitimizes economic, political, and gender inequities. Arguing that this public ethic benefits a powerful few at the expense of long-term social, economic, and ecological well-being, these women call for a public ethic that promotes economic and political justice, ecological integrity, and relations of cooperation, respect, and nonviolence. Their struggles to give voice to this morality suggest that ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve struggles to promote a public ethic of care that makes socially and ecologically destructive practices morally unacceptable. Broad Structures Social structures serve to channel human behaviours in one direction as opposed to countless other possibilities. In this research, women located land use processes in the context of inequitable and patriarchal economic and political structures that channel resources and decision-making power to male-dominated corporate and government elites and marginalize women and countless others. Arguing that these structures perpetuate ecological and social fragmentation in the region, and reproduce social, economic, and gender inequities, they challenged corporate domination and undemocratic processes and called for sustainable livelihoods for all and inclusive community-based processes. Their story of the betrayal of a promising community process reveals the limits of these processes in the context of broad socio-political structures that act to protect the interests of the status quo. They also reveal the complex set of relationships that extend both into and outside the 371 community. The contextual nature of community processes suggest that an ethics-based planning for sustainability w i l l involve broader struggles to create equitable structures so that ethics-based planning for sustainability can take place both within and between communities, and at local, regional, and global levels. A s a power-sensitive process that has both external and internal dimensions, the ethics-based planning framework developed out of the research findings creates the space for all to come together to understand and respond to ecological, social, economic, and ethical concerns. In placing the ecological and social integrity of 'place' at the centre of moral concern, this ethics-based planning provides the space to challenge culturally dominant values and structures that threaten the well-being of life on this planet; and to come to a better understanding of what it means to live as humans, male and female, and in all our differences, in the context of a nature to which we belong. Ultimately, a power-sensitive ethics-based planning for sustainability critically affirms and supports the flourishing of the 'seeds' o f cultural transformation that already exist on the margins of western culture. In particular, an ethics-based planning for sustainability critically affirms and supports the flourishing of this potential among women who offer critical insights and contributions from the economic, political, and cultural margins. 372 R E F E R E N C E S Aberley, Doug, ed. 1993. Boundaries of home: Mapping for local empowerment. The N e w Catalyst Bioregional Series. Gabriola Island, B C : New Society Publishers. . 1994. Futures by design: The practice of ecological planning. The N e w Catalyst Bioregional Series. Gabriola Island, B C : New Society Publishers. Adams, Carol J. 1993. Introduction. In Ecofeminism and the sacred, ed. Carol J. Adams, 1-9. N e w York, N Y : Continuum. Adamson, Nancy, Linda Briskin, and Margaret McPhai l . 1988. Feminist organizing for change: The contemporary women's movement in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Agarwal, Bina. 1992. The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18 (1): 119-58. Andruss, Van, Christopher Plant, Judith Plant, and Eleanor Wright, eds. 1990. Home! A bioregional reader. Foreword by Stephanie Mi l l s . Philadelphia, P A : N e w Society. Archambault, Anne. 1993. A critique of ecofeminism. Canadian Woman Studies\Les Cahiers de la Femme 13 (3): 19-22. Archeo Tech Associates. 1991. The Nuu-chah-nulth sustainable development interest in Clayoquot Sound. Victoria, B C : Archeo Tech Associates for the Steering Committee, Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Strategy. Arcury, Thomas A . , and Eric H . Christianson. 1990. Environmental worldview in response to environmental problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environment and Behavior 22 (3): 387-407. Ar ima, Eugene, and John Dewhirst. 1990. Nootkans of Vancouver Island. In Northwest Coast, ed. Wayne Suttles, 391-411. V o l 7 of Handbook of North American Indians, ed. Wi l l i am C. Sturtevant. Washington, D C : Smithsonian Institution. Baldassare, Mark, and Cheryl Katz. 1992. The personal threat of environmental problems as predictor of environmental practices. Environment and Behavior 24 (5): 602-16. 373 Bari , Judi. 1991. N o compromise in defense of Mother Earth: A n interview with Earth First! activist Judi Bari . Interview by Christine Keyser. Woman of Power. 20 (Spring): 48-53. . 1994. The feminization of Earth First! Chap, in Timber wars. Monroe, M E : Common Courage Press. Beatley, Timothy. 1989. Environmental ethics and planning theory. Journal of Planning Literature 4 (1): 1-32. Beavis, Mary Ann . 1991. Stewardship, planning and public policy. Plan Canada 31 (6): 75-81. Be l l , Stewart. 1993. Ecofeminists run'Peace Camp'at Clayoquot Sound. Vancouver Sun. August 19, B l . Berg, Peter, ed. 1978. Reinhabiting a separate country: A bioregional anthology of Northern California. San Francisco: Planet Drum Foundation. Berg, Peter, and Raymond F. Dasmann. 1990. Reinhabiting California. In Home! A bioregional reader, eds. Van Andruss, Christopher Plant, Judith Plant, and Eleanor Wright, 35-8. Philadelphia P A : N e w Society Publishers. Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1985. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: V ik ing Penguin, 1966; reprint, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (page references are to reprint edition). Berman, Morris. 1984. The reenchantment of the world. Ithaca N Y : Cornell University Press, 1981; reprint, New York: Bantam Books (page references are to reprint edition). . 1986. The cybernetic dream of the twenty-first century. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 26 (2): 24-51. _ . 1990. Coming to our senses: Body and spirit in the hidden history of the West. N e w York: Simon and Schuster, 1989; reprint, New York: Bantam Books (page references are to reprint edition). Berman, Ruth. 1989. From Aristotle's dualism to materialist dialectics: Feminist transformation of science and society. In Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing, eds. Al i son M . Jaggar and Susan R. Bordo, 224-55. New Brunswick, N J : Rutgers University Press. 374 Berman, Tzeporah. 1993. Towards an integrative ecofeminist praxis. Canadian Woman Studies\Les Cahiers de la Femme 13 (3): 15-17. . 1995. Standing for our lives: A feminist journey to Clayoqout Sound. Master's major paper, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, North York, Ontario. Berman, Tzeporah, Gordon Brent Ingram, Maurice Gibbons, Ronald B . Hatch, Loijs Maignon, and Christopher Hatch. 1994. Clayoquot and dissent. Vancouver, B C : Ronsdale Press. Berry, Thomas. 1988. The dream of the earth. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Biehl , Janet. 1991. Finding our way: Rethinking ecofeminist politics. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Birch, Charles. 1988. The postmodern challenge to biology. In The reenchantment of science: Postmodern proposals, ed. David Ray Griffin, 69-78. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. B i rd , Elizabeth A n n R. 1987. The social construction of nature: Theoretical approaches to the history of environmental problems. Environmental Review 11 (4): 255-64 Birkeland, Janis. 1991. A n ecofeminist critique of manstream planning. Trumpeter 8 (2): 72-84. . 1993a. Ecofeminism: Linking theory and practice. In Ecofeminism: Women. animals, nature, ed. Greta Gaard, 13-59. Philadelphia, P A : Temple University Press. . 1993b. Towards a new system of environmental governance. The Environmentalist 13 (1): 19-32. Blocker, T. Jean, and Douglas Lee Eckberg. 1989. Environmental issues as women's issues: General concerns and local hazards. Social Science Quarterly 70 (3): 586-93. Bock, Gisela, and Susan James, eds. 1992. Beyond equality & difference: Citizenship, feminist politics and female subjectivity. London: Routledge. Bohm, David. 1988. Postmodern science and a postmodern world. In The reenchantment of science: postmodern proposals, ed. David Ray Griffin, 57-68. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. 375 Bombay, Harry. 1993. Many things to many people: Aboriginal forestry in Canada is looking toward balanced solutions. Cultural Survival Quarterly 17 (1): 15-18. Bookchin, Murray. 1980. Toward an ecological society. Montreal: Black Rose Books. . 1989. Remaking society. Montreal: Black Rose Books. . 1990. The philosophy of social ecology: Essays on dialectical naturalism. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Booth, Annie L . , and Harvey M . Jacobs. 1993. Ties that bind: Native American beliefs as a foundation for environmental consciousness. In Environmental ethics: Divergence and convergence, eds. Susan J. Armstrong and Richard G . Botzler, 519-26. N e w York: M c G r a w - H i l l . Bordo, Susan. 1986. The cartesian masculinization of thought. Signs 11 (3): 439-56. Boucher, Priscilla. 1993a. In search of a more complex telling: Challenging the dominant story of the forest industry. Canadian Women Studies\Les Cahiers de la Femme 13 (3): 42-4. . 1993b. Reweaving the story of the forest. The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophv 10 (2): 71-6. . Forthcoming. Women in the shadows of the industrial forest: silences, tensions and contradictions. In A s Canadian as possible under the circumstances: Issues of women. Canada, and the environment (working title), eds. Mar i lyn MacDonald, Rebecca Raglan and Melody Hessing. Vancouver B C : U B C Press. Bowers, C A . 1991. The anthropocentric foundations of educational liberalism: Some critical concerns. The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophv 8 (3): 102-7. Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 1987. Democracy and capitalism: Property. community, and the contradictions of modern social thought. N e w York, N Y : Basic Books. Boyd, Robert T. 1990. Demographic history, 1774-1874. In Northwest Coast, ed. Wayne Suttles, 135-48. V o l 7 of Handbook of North American Indians, ed. Wi l l i am C. Sturtevant. Washington, D C : Smithsonian Institution. Braidotti, Rosi , Ewa Charkiewics, Sabine Hausler, Saskia Wieringa. 1994. Women, the environment and sustainable development: Towards a theoretical synthesis. London: Zed Books in association with I N S T R A W . 376 Brandt, Barbara. 1995. Whole life economics: Revaluing daily life. Philadelphia, P A : N e w Society Publishers. Breen-Needham, Howard, Sandy Frances Duncan, Deborah Ferens, Phyllis Reeve, and Susan Yates, eds. 1994. Witness to wilderness: The Clayoquot Sound anthology. Vancouver, B C : Arsenal Pulp Press. Brown, Lester R. 1993. A new era unfolds. In State of the world 1993: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Lester R. Brown et al., 3-21. N e w York: W . W . Norton & Company. Brown, Lester R. , and Christopher Flavin. 1988. The Earth's vital signs. In State o f the world 1988: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Lester R. Brown et al., 3-21. New York: W . W . Norton & Company. Brown, Lester R., Christopher Flavin, and Sandra Postel. 1993. Foreword. In State of the world 1993: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Lester R. Brown et al., xv-xix. New York: W . W . Norton & Company. Brownmiller, Susan. 1975. Against our wi l l : Men, women and rape. N e w York: Simon and Schuster. Buege, Douglas J. 1994. Rethinking again: A defense of ecofeminist philosophy. In Ecological feminism, ed. Karen J. Warren with the assistance of Barbara Wells-Howe, 42-63. Environmental Philosophies Series, ed. Andrew Brennan. London: Routledge. Caldecott, Leonie, and Stephanie Leland, eds. 1983. Reclaim the earth: Women speak out for life on earth. London: Women's Press. Capra, Fritjof. 1982. The turning point: Science, society, and the rising culture. Toronto: Bantam. Caputi, Jane. 1992. To acknowledge and to heal: 20 Years of feminist thought and activism on sexual violence. In The knowledge explosion: Generations of feminist scholarship, eds. Cheris Kramarae and Dale Spender, 340-52. Athene Series: A n International Collection of Feminist Books, eds. Gloria Bowles, Renate Kle in , Janice Raymond. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Catton, Wi l l i am R., Jr. and Riley E . Dunlap. 1980. A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1): 15-47. 377 Chavez, Valerie Tailman. 1992. Native Americans battle with toxic waste. Indigenous Woman 1 (2): 15-6. Cheney, Jim. 1987. Eco-feminism and deep ecology. Environmental Ethics 9 (2): 115-145. . 1994. Nature/theory/difference: Ecofeminism and the reconstruction of environmental ethics. In Ecological feminism, ed. Karen J. Warren with the assistance of Barbara Wells-Howe, 158-78. Environmental Philosophies Series, ed. Andrew Brennan. London: Routledge. Chornook, Kay. 1993. \"Be what you've come here for.\" In Circles of strength: Community alternatives to alienation, ed. Helen Forsey, foreword by Judith Plant, 117-26. The N e w Catalyst Bioregional Series. Gabriola Island, B C : New Society Publishers. Clandinin, D . Jean, and F. Michael Connelly. 1994. Personal experience methods. In Handbook of qualitative research, eds. Norman K . Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 413-27. Thousand Oaks, C A : Sage Publications. Clayoquot Biosphere Project. 1992. A vision for scientific understanding of Clayoquot Sound. Tofino, B C : Clayoquot Biosphere Project; Portland, OR: Ecotrust. Coates, Gary J., ed. 1981. Resettling America: Energy, ecology and community. Andover, Mass: Brick House Publishing. Cook, Judith A . , and Mary Margaret Fonow. 1986. Knowledge and women's interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. Sociological Inquiry 56 (1): 2-29. Cook, Katsi. 1992. Breastmilk, PCB's and motherhood: A n interview with Katsi Cook, Mohawk. Indigenous Woman 1 (2): 1-4. Cornwell , Martha L . 1989. Gender gap: Male/female differences in environmental concern. Ph.D. diss., State University of New York at Buffalo. Costanza, Robert. 1989. What is ecological economics? Ecological Economics 1 (1): 1-7. C R B (Central Region Board). 1996. Clayoquot Sound Central Region Board. C S S D S S C (Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Strategy Steering Committee). 1992a. Clayoquot Sound sustainable development strategy: First draft of the strategy document. Victoria, B C . 378 . 1992b. Clayoquot Sound sustainable development strategy: Second draft of the strategy document. Victoria, B C . . 1992c. Clayoquot Sound sustainable development strategy: Supplement to second draft of the strategy document. Victoria, B C . C S S D T F (Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force). 1991. Clayoquot Sound sustainable development task force. Report to the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Regional and Economic Development. Victoria, B C . C S S P (Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel). 1995a. Report 4: A vision and its context: Global context for forest practices in Clayoquot Sound. Victoria, B C . . 1995b. Report 5: Sustainable ecosystem management in Clayoquot Sound: Planning and practices. Victoria, B C . Currie, Dawn H . , and Valerie Raoul. 1992. The anatomy of gender: Dissecting sexual difference in the body of knowledge. In The anatomy of gender, eds. D . H . Currie and V . Raoul, 1-34. Ottawa: Carleton University Press. Daly, Herman E. , and John B . Cobb, Jr. 1989. For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. With contributions by Clifford W. Cobb. Boston, M A : Beacon Press. Dankelman, Irene, and Joan Davidson. 1988. Women and environment in the Third World: Alliance for the future. London: Earthscan Publications in association with I U C N . Davion, Victoria. 1994. Is ecofeminism feminist? In Ecological feminism, ed. Karen J. Warren, with the assistance of Barbara Wells-Howe, 8-28. Environmental Philosophies Series, ed. Andrew Brennan. London: Routledge. Denzin, Norman K . , and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. 1994. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, C A : Sage Publications. Devall , B i l l . 1988. Simple in means, rich in ends: Practicing deep ecology. Salt Lake City, U T : Gibbs-Smith , Peregrine Smith Books. Devall , B i l l , and George Sessions. 1985. Deep ecology: L iv ing as i f nature mattered. Salt Lake City, U T : Gibbs M . Smith, Peregrine Smith Books. D i Chiro, Giovanna. 1992. Defining environmental justice: women's voices and grassroots politics. Socialist Review 22 (4): 93-130. 379 Diamond, Irene, and Gloria Feman Orenstein, eds. 1990. Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Dorst, Adrian, and Cameron Young. 1990. Clayoquot: On the wild side. Vancouver, B C : Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Doubiago, Sharon. 1989. Mama Coyote talks to the boys. In Healing the wounds: The promise of ecofeminism. ed. Judith Plant, 40-44. Toronto: Between the Lines. Drengson, Alan R. 1980. Shifting paradigms: From the technocratic to the person-planetary. Environmental Ethics 2 (3): 221-240. . 1997. A n ecophilosophy approach, the deep ecology movement and diverse ecosophies. The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophv 14 (3): 110-111. D'Souza, Corrine Kumar. 1989. A new movement, a new hope: East wind, west wind, and the wind from the south. In Healing the wounds: The promise of ecofeminism. ed. Judith Plant, 29-39. Toronto: Between the Lines. . 1994. The south wind: Towards new cosmologies. In Feminist perspectives on sustainable development, ed. Wendy Harcourt, 89-97. London: Zed Books; Rome: Society for International Development. Durning, Alan B . 1989. Mobi l iz ing at the grassroots. In State of the world 1989: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Lester R. Brown, et al., 154-73. New York: W . W . Norton & Company. Durning, A l a n Thein. 1993. Supporting indigenous peoples. In State of the world 1993: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Lester R. Brown, et a l , 80-100. New York: W . W . Norton & Company. . 1994. Redesigning the Forest Economy. In State of the world 1994: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Lester R. Brown, et al., 22-40. New York: W . W . Norton & Company. Eckersley, Robyn. 1992. Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. S U N Y Series in Environmental Public Policy, ed. Lester Milbrath. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. Ecologist. 1993. Whose common future?: Reclaiming the commons. Philadelphia, P A : New Society Publishers; London: Earthscan Publications. 380 Ecotrust, Pacific GIS, and Conservation International. 1995. The rain forests of home: A n atlas of people and place. Part 1: Natural forests and native languages of the coastal temperate rain forest. Portland, OR: Ecotrust, Pacific GIS, and Conservation International. Ecotrust Canada. 1997. Seeing the ocean through the trees: A conservation-based development strategy for Clayoquot Sound. Vancouver B C . Eichler, Margrit, ed. 1995. Change of plans: Towards a non-sexist sustainable city. Toronto: Garamond Press. Eisler, Riane. 1987. The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. San Francisco: Harper & Row. . 1990. The gaia tradition and the partnership future: A n ecofeminist manifesto. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. ed. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 23-34. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Ekins, Paul, and Manfred Max-Neef, eds. 1992. Real-life economics: Understanding wealth creation. London: Routledge. Estes, Caroline. 1990. Consensus. In Home! A bioregional reader, eds. Van Andruss. Christopher Plant, Judith Plant, and Eleanor Wright, 165-9. Philadelphia, P A : N e w Society Publishers. Evernden, N e i l . 1985. The natural alien. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. F A O (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1991. Restoring the Balance: Women and Forest Resources. In Women and the environment: A reader: Crisis and development in the Third World, ed. Sally Sontheimer, 67-92. N e w York: Monthly Review Press. Feldman, Christina. 1990. Woman awake: A celebration of women's wisdom. London: Arkana. Fike, Michelle Summer, and Sarah Kerr. 1995. Making the links: Why bioregionalism needs ecofeminism. Alternatives 21 (2): 24-7. Flax, Jane. 1990. Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. In Feminism/postmodernism, ed. Linda J. Nicholson, 39-62. New York: Routledge. F O C S (Friends of Clayoquot Sound). 1993. Friends of Clayoquot Sound time line. Tofino, B C . Photocopied. 381 Fonow, Mary Margaret, and Judith A . Cook, eds. 1991. Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research. Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Press. Fontana, Andrea, and James H . Frey. 1994. Interviewing: The art of science. In Handbook of qualitative research, eds. Norman K . Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 361-76. Thousand Oaks, C A : Sage Publications. Forest Renewal B C . 1995. Forest Renewal B C business plan 1995/96. Victoria, B C : Forest Renewal B C . Forsey, Helen. 1993. Back into the quagmire: Linking patriarchy and planetary destruction. Alternatives 19 (3): 47-9. Fortmann, Louise, and Jonathan Kusel. 1990. New voices, old beliefs: Forest environmentalism among new and long-standing rural residents. Rural Sociology 55 (2): 214-32. Fox, Warwick. 1989. The deep ecology-ecofeminism debate and its parallels. Environmental Ethics 11 (1): 5-25. F R C (Forest Resources Commission). 1991. The future of our forests. Victoria, B C : Forest Resources Commission. Freudenberg, Nicholas, and Ellen Zaltzberg. 1984. From grassroots activism to political power: Women organizing against environmental hazards. In Double exposure: Women's health hazards on the job and at home, ed. Wendy Chavkin, M . D . , preface by Eula Bingham, 246-72. New York: Monthly Review Press. Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton, N J : Princeton University Press. Gaard, Greta. 1993a. Ecofeminism and Native American cultures: Pushing the limits of cultural imperialism? In Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature, ed. Greta Gaard, 295-314. Philadelphia, P A : Temple University Press. _ . 1993b. L iv ing interconnections with animals and nature. In Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature, ed. Greta Gaard, 1-12. Ethics and Act ion Series, ed. Tom Regan. Philadelphia, P A : Temple University Press. , ed. 1993c. Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature. Ethics and Act ion Series, ed. Tom Regan. Philadelphia, P A : Temple University Press. 382 Gaard, Greta, and Lor i Gruen. 1993. Ecofeminism: Toward global justice and planetary health. Society and Nature: Feminism and Ecology 2 (I): 1-35. Galtung, Johan. 1980. The true worlds: A transnational perspective. New York: The Free Press. Gardner, Julia, and Mark Roseland. 1989. Acting locally: Community strategies for equitable sustainable development. Alternatives 16 (3): 36-48. Garland, Anne Witte. 1988. Women activists: Challenging the abuse of power. Foreword by Ralph Nader, introduction by Frances T. Farenthold. New York: The Feminist Press and City University of New York. Garry, Ann , and Mar i lyn Pearsall, eds. 1989. Women, knowledge, and reality: Explorations in feminist philosophy. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Gibbs, Lois Marie. 1982. Love canal: M y story. A s told to Murray Levine. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. Gibbs, Lois Marie, and Karen J. Stults. 1988. On grassroots environmentalism. In Crossroads: Environmental priorities for the future, ed. Peter Borrelli . Washington, D C : Island Press. Gil l igan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press. Glasser, Harold. 1997. On Warwick Fox's assessment of deep ecology. Environmental Ethics 19(1): 69-85. Gluck, Sherma Berger, and Daphne Patai, eds. 1991. Women's words: The feminist practice of oral history. N e w York, N Y : Routledge. Goldsmith, Edward, Robert Al len , Michael Allaby, John Davoll and Sam Lawrence. 1972. Blueprint for survival. Boston: Houghton Mif f l in . Reprint. Harmondsworth, U . K . : Penguin. Goodwin, El l ie . 1991. Building coalitions for our earth: A n interview with El l ie Goodwin about \"Race, Poverty, and the Environment\" Newsletter. Interview by Laurie Corliss Glasheen. Woman of Power. 20 (Spring): 32-5. Government of British Columbia. 1993a. Clayoquot Sound land use decision: Key elements. Victoria, B C . 383 . 1993b. Clayoquot Sound: A balanced decision: A sustainable future. Victoria, B C . . 1993c. British Columbia forest practices code: Proposed forest practices rules for British Columbia. Victoria, B C . Gray, Elizabeth Dodson. 1982. Patriarchy as a conceptual trap. Wellesley, M A : Roundtable Press. Greed, Clara H . 1994. Women and planning: Creating gendered realities. London: Routledge. Griffin, David Ray. 1988a. Introduction: The reenchantment of science. In The reenchantment of science: Postmodern proposals, ed. David Ray Griffin, 1-46. S U N Y Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought, ed. David Ray Griffin. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. . 1988b. O f minds and molecules: Postmodern medicine in a psychosomatic universe. In The reenchantment of science: Postmodern proposals, ed. David Ray Griffin, 141-63. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. , ed. 1988c. The reenchantment of science: Postmodern proposals. S U N Y Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought, ed. David Ray Griffin. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. Griffin, Susan. 1978. Woman and nature: The roaring inside her. New York: Perennial Library, Harper & Row. . 1982. The Politics of rape. In Made from this earth: Selections from her writing. 1967-1982. London: Women's Press. . 1986. Rape: The politics of consciousness. Revised, 3rd edition. San Francisco: Harper and Row. . 1989. Split culture. In Healing the wounds: The promise of ecofeminism. ed. Judith Plant, 7-17. Toronto: Between the Lines. Griscom, Joan L . 1981. On healing the nature/history split in feminist thought. Heresies: Feminism and Ecology 4 (1): 4-9. Hamilton, Cynthia. 1990. Women, home, and community: The struggle in an urban environment. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. eds. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 215-22. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. 384 . 1991. Women, home, and community. Woman of Power. 20 (Spring): 42-5. Hamilton, Lawrence C . 1985a. Concern about toxic wastes: Three demographic predictors. Sociological Perspectives 28 (4): 463-86. . 1985b. Who cares about water pollution? Opinions in a small-town crisis. Sociological Inquiry 55 (2): 170-81. Hammond, Herb. 1991. Seeing the forest among the trees: The case for wholistic forest use. Vancouver, B C : Polestar Press. Hammond, Herb. 1993. Forest practices: Putting wholistic forest use into practice. In Touch wood: B C forests at the crossroads, eds. Ken Drushka, Bob Nixon , and Ray Travers, 96-136. Madeira Park, B C : Harbour Publishing. Hanmer, Jalna. 1978. Violence and the social control of women. In Power and the state, eds. Gary Littlejohn, Barry Smart, John Wakeford, and Ni ra Yuval-Davis. London: Croom Helm. Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of the partial perspective. Chap, in Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge. Harcourt, Wendy. 1994a. Negotiating positions in the sustainable development debate: Situating the feminist perspective. In Feminist perspectives on sustainable development, ed. Wendy Harcourt, 11-25. London: Zed Books; Rome: Society for International Development. , ed. 1994b. Feminist perspectives on sustainable development. London: Zed Books; Rome: Society for International Development. Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press. . 1987a. Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In Feminism and methodology: Social science issues, ed. Sandra Harding, 1-14. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press; Mi l ton Keynes: Open University Press. . 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women's lives. Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University Press. , ed. 1987b. Feminism and methodology. Social Science Issues. Bloomington, I N : Indiana University Press; Mi l ton Keynes: Open University Press. 385 Harman, Wi l l i s W. 1988. The Postmodern heresy: Consciousness as causal. In The reenchantment of science: Postmodern proposals, ed. David Ray Griffin, 115-28. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. Hausler, Sabine. 1994. Women and the politics of sustainable development. In Feminist perspectives on sustainable development, ed. Wendy Harcourt, 145-55. London: Zed Books; Rome: Society for International Development. Hay, Robert. 1989. The contribution of Maori cosmology to a revision of environmental philosophy. The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophv 6 (4): 156-62. Heller, Chaia. 1993a. Down to the body: Feminism, ecology and the evolution of the body politic. Society and Nature: Feminism and Ecology 2 (1): 137-62. . 1993b. For the love of nature: Ecology and the cult of the romantic, in Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature, ed. Greta Gaard, 219-42. Philadelphia, P A : Temple University Press. . 1993c. Toward a radical ecofeminism: From dua-logic to eco-logic. Society and Nature: Feminism and Ecology 2 (1): 72-96. Henderson, Hazel. 1991. Paradigms in progress: Life beyond economics. Indianapolis, IN : Knowledge Systems, Inc. Hessing, Melody. 1992. Women and sustainability: Ecofeminist perspectives. Alternatives 19(2): 14-21. Highlander. 1992. Environment and development in the U S A : A grassroots report for U N C E D . compiled by the Community Environmental Health Program of the Highlander Research and Education Center. New Market, T N : Highlander Research and Education Center. Holmstrom, Nancy. 1986. Do women have a distinct nature? In Women and values: Readings in recent feminist philosophy, ed. Mari lyn Pearsall, 51-61. Belmont, C A : Wadsworth Publishing. hooks, bell. 1984. Feminist theory: from margin to center. Boston, M A : South End Press. . 1988. Talking back: thinking feminist, thinking black. Toronto: Between the Lines. Hosek, Chaviva. 1991. Coming together. Women & Environments 12 (3/4): 14-6. 386 House, Freeman. 1990. To learn the things we need to know: Engaging the particulars of the planet's recovery. In Home! A bioregional reader, eds. Van Andruss, Christopher Plant, Judith Plant, and Eleanor Wright, 111-20. Philadelphia, P A : New Society Publishers. Hughes, Donald J. 1993. The ancient roots of our ecological crisis. In Environmental ethics: Divergence and convergence, ed. Susan J. Armstrong and Richard G . Botzler, 167-171. New York: McGraw-Hi l l . Hutcheson, Sarah. 1995. Walking the line: Facing the complexities of the woman-nature link. Alternatives 21 (2): 16-20. Hynes, H . Patricia. 1988. Catalysts of the American environmental movement: Profiles of El len Swallow, Lois Gibbs and Rachel Carson. Woman of Power. 9 (Spring): 37-41, 78-80. Ingram, Gordon Brent. 1994. The ecology of a conflict. In Clayoquot and dissent, essays by Tzeporah Berman, Gordon Brent Ingram, Maurice Gibbons, Ronald B . Hatch, Loijs Maignon, and Christopher Hatch, 9-71. Vancouver, B C : Ronsdale Press. Jacobs, Harvey M . 1995. Contemporary environmental philosophy and its challenge to planning theory. In Planning ethics: A reader in planning theory, practice, and education, ed. Sue Hendler, 83-103. New Brunswick, N J : Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University. Jacobson, Jodi L . 1992a. Gender bias: Roadblock to sustainable development. Worldwatch Paper 110 (September). Washington, D C : Worldwatch Institute. . 1992b. Out of the woods. World Watch (December): 26-31. Jaggar, Al i son M . 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, N . J . : Rowman & Allanheld. Jaggar, Al i son M . , and Susan R. Bordo, eds. 1989. Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing. New Brunswick, N J : Rutgers University Press. James, Susan. 1992. The good-enough citizen: Female citizenship and independence. In Beyond equality & difference: Citizenship, feminist politics and female subjectivity, eds. Gisela Bock and Susan James, 48-65. London: Routledge. Janeway, Elizabeth. 1980. Powers of the weak. New York: Alfred A . Knopf. 387 Jayaratne, Toby Epstein, and Abigai l J. Stewart. 1991. Quantitative and qualitative methods in the social sciences: Current feminist issues and practical strategies. In Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research, eds. Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith A . Cook. 85-106. Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Press. Johnson, David Kenneth, and Kathleen R. Johnson. 1994. The limits of partiality: Ecofeminism, animal rights, and environmental concern. In Ecological feminism, ed. Karen J. Warren with the assistance of Barbara Wells-Howe, 106-119. Environmental Philosophies Series, ed. Andrew Brennan. London: Routledge. Jones, Robert Emmet, and Riley E . Dunlap. 1992. The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology 57 (1): 28-47. Jordan, Charles, and Donald Snow. 1992. Diversification, minorities, and the mainstream environmental movement. In Voices from the environmental movement: Perspectives for a new era, ed. Donald Snow, foreword by Patrick F. Noonan, 71-109. Washington, D C : Island Press for The Conservation Fund. Kel logg, Erin, ed. 1992. Coastal temperate rain forests: Ecological characteristics, status and distribution worldwide. Occasional Paper No . 1. Portland, OR: Ecotrust and Conservation International. Kheel , Marti . 1990. Ecofeminism and deep ecology: Reflections on identity and difference. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. ed. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 128-37. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. K i n g , Ynestra. 1983. Feminism and the revolt of nature. W I N (February 1983): 11-15. . 1989. The ecology of feminism and the feminism of ecology. In Healing the wounds: The promise of ecofeminism. ed. Judith Plant, 18-28. Toronto: Between the Lines. . 1990. Healing the wounds: Feminism, ecology, and the nature/culture dualism. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. ed. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 106-21. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. K i n g , Roger J .H. 1991. Caring about nature: Feminist ethics and the environment. Hypatia: Ecological Feminism 6 (1): 75-89. Klundt, Karen K . 1991. Ecological frameworks and gender roles: A n analysis of personality orientations, social roles, and environmental concern. Ph.D. diss., University of Denver. 388 Korten, David C. 1990. Getting to the 21st century: Voluntary action and the global agenda. West Hartford, C T : Kumarian Press. Kosek, Jon. 1993. Ethics, economics, and ecosystems: Can British Columbia's indigenous people blend the economic potential of forest resources with traditional philosophies? Cultural Survival Quarterly 17 (1): 19-23. Krauss, Celene. 1993. Women and toxic waste protests: Race, class and gender as resources of resistance. Qualitative Sociology 16 (3): 247-62. . 1995. Women on the front line: Issues of race, class, and gender in toxic waste protests. Woman of Power. 24: 52-7. LaChapelle, Dolores. 1988. Sacred land, sacred sex, rapture of the deep: Concerning deep ecology and celebrating life. Silverton, C O : Finn H i l l Arts. LaDuke, Winona. 1991. Supporting our front-line struggles: A n interview with Winona LaDuke about Indigenous Woman magazine. Interview by Gai l Hanlon. Woman of Power. 21 (Fall): 75-77. Lahar, Stephanie. 1991. Ecofeminist theory and grassroots politics. Hvpatia: Ecological Feminism 6 (1): 28-45. . 1993. Roots: Rejoining natural and social history. In Ecofeminism: Women. animals, nature, ed. Greta Gaard, 91-117. Ethics and Action Series, ed. Tom Regan. Philadelphia, P A : Temple University Press. Langer, Valerie, and Jan Bate. 1993. Women out front in Clayoquot Sound. Canadian Woman Studies\Les Cahiers de la Femme 13 (3): 81-3. Larsen, Elizabeth. 1991. Granola boys, eco-dudes, and me. M s (July/August): 96-7. Leghorn, Lisa , and Katherine Parker. 1981. Woman's worth: Sexual economics and the world of women. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Leopold, Aldo . 1966. A sand county almanac: With essays on conservation from Round River. New York, N Y : Ballantine Books. Lerner, Sally. 1993. The importance of active earthkeeping. In Environmental stewardship: Studies in active earthkeeping. ed. Sally Lerner, 3-8. Department of Geography Publication Series, ed. Bruce Mitchell . Waterloo, O N : Department of Geography, University of Waterloo. 389 Lerner, Sally, and John Jackson. 1993. Reflecting on what we have learned. In Environmental stewardship: Studies in active earthkeeping. ed. Sally Lerner, 385-97. Department of Geography Publication Series, ed. Bruce Mitchell . Waterloo, O N : Department of Geography, University of Waterloo. Levine, Adeline G . 1982. Love canal: Science, politics, and people. Lexington, M A : Lexington Books. Light, Anita. 1992. Hysterical housewives or committed campaigners? The Ecologist 22 (1): 14-5. Lincoln , Yvonna S., and Egon G . Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hi l l s , C A : Sage Publications. Livingston, John. 1981. The fallacy of wildlife conservation. Toronto: McClel land & Stewart. Longstreth, M o l l y , Jean Turner, Michael L . Topliff, and Donna R. lams. 1989. Support for soft and hard path American energy policies: Does gender play a role? Women's Studies International Forum 12 (2): 213-26. Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister outsider: Essays and speeches by Audre Lorde. The Crossing Press Feminist Series. Trumansburg, N Y : The Crossing Press. Luxton, Meg , Harriet Rosenberg, and Sedef Arat-Koc. 1990. Introduction: The politics of home and family. Chap, in Through the kitchen window: The politics of home and family. 2nd ed., 9-29. Network Basic Series. Toronto, O N : Garamond Press. MacGregor, Sherilyn. 1995. Deconstructing the man made city: Feminist critiques of planning thought and action. In Change of plans: Towards a non-sexist sustainable city, ed. Margrit Eichler, 25-49. Toronto: Garamond Press. Maclsaac, Ron and Anne Champagne, eds. 1994. Clayoquot mass trials: Defending the rainforest. Foreword by Robert F . Kennedy Jr. Gabriola Island, B C : N e w Society Publishers. Macy, Joanna. 1983. Despair and personal power in the nuclear age. Philadelphia, P A : N e w Society Publishers. . 1994. Toward a healing of self and world. In Ecology: Key concepts in critical theory, ed. Carolyn Merchant, 292-8. Atlantic Highlands, N J : Humanities Press International. 390 Mander, Jerry. 1991. In the absence of the sacred: The failure of technology and the survival of the Indian Nations. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Marchak, M . Patricia. 1983. Green gold: The forest industry in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. . 1995. Logging the globe. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press. Marietta, Don E . Jr. 1982. Knowledge and obligation in environmental ethics: A phenomenological analysis. Environmental Ethics 4 (2): 153-62. Marshall, Catherine, and Gretchen B . Rossman. 1989. Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, C A : Sage Publications. Martin, Evelyn, and Timothy Beatley. 1993. Our relationship with the earth: Environmental ethics in planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research 12 (2): 117-26. Maser, Chris. 1990. The redesigned forest. Toronto: Stoddart. May , Elizabeth. 1990a. Gaia women. In Rescue the Earth! Conversations with the green crusaders by Farley Mowat. 247-65. A n Adrienne Clarkson Book. Toronto: McClel land & Stewart. May , Elizabeth. 1990b. Paradise won: The struggle for South Moresby. Toronto, O N : McClel land & Stewart. McLaren, Jean. 1994. Spirits rising: The story of the Clayoquot Peace Camp 1993. Gabriola, B C : Pacific Edge Publishing. Mcintosh, Susan. 1993. On the homefront: In defence of the health of our families. Canadian Woman Studies\Les Cahiers de la Femme 13 (3): 89-93. McStay, Jan R., and Riley E . Dunlap. 1983. Male-female differences in concern for environmental quality. International Journal of Women's Studies 6 (4): 291-301. Meadows, Donella H . , Dennis L . Meadows, Jorgen Rangers, and Wil l iam W. Behrens III, 1972. The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. New York: Universe. Mel lor , Mary. 1992. Breaking the boundaries: Towards a feminist green socialism. London: Virago Press. 391 Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row. . 1981. Earthcare: Women and the environment. Environment 23 (5): 6-13, 38-40. . 1984. Women of the progressive conservation movement, 1900-1916. Environmental Review 8 (1): 57-85. . 1987. The theoretical structure of ecological revolutions. Environmental Review 11 (4): 265-74. . 1989. Ecological revolutions: Nature, gender, and science in New England. Chapel H i l l : University of North Carolina Press. . 1990. Ecofeminism and feminist theory. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. eds. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 100-5. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. . 1992. Radical ecology: The search for a livable world. New York: Routledge. . 1996. Earthcare: Women and the environment. New York: Routledge. Meyer, Christine, and Faith Moosang, eds. 1992. L iv ing with the land: Communities restoring the earth. The New Catalyst Bioregional Series. Philadelphia, P A : N e w Society Publishers. Mies , Maria. 1986. Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale: Women in the international division of labour. London: Zed Books. Mies , Maria , and Vandana Shiva. 1993. Ecofeminism. Halifax, N S : Fernwood Publications; London: Zed Books. Milbrath, Lester W. 1985. Culture and the environment in the United States. Environmental Management 9 (2): 161-72. . 1989. Envisioning a sustainable society: Learning our way out. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. Mi l le r , Doug. 1991. What the polls tell us. Women & Environments 12 (3/4): 68-9. Mi l roy , Beth Moore. 1991. Taking stock of planning, space, and gender. Journal of Planning Literature 6 (1): 3-15. 392 Mit l i n , Diana. 1992. Sustainable development: A guide to the literature. Environment and Urbanization 4 m : 111-124. Mohai , Paul. 1992. Men, women, and the environment: A n examination of the gender gap in environmental concern and activism. Society and Natural Resources 5 (1): 1-19. Moore, Keith. 1991. Coastal watersheds: A n inventory of watersheds in the coastal temperate forests of British Columbia. A B C Endangered Spaces Project Working Paper. Vancouver, B C : Earthlife Canada Foundation in association with Ecotrust and Conservation International. Mumford, Lewis. 1970. The myth of the machine: The pentagon of power. New York: Ftarcourt Brace Jovanovich. Naess, Arne. 1989. Ecology, community and lifestyle: Outline of an ecosophv. Translated and edited by David Rothenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1993. The deep ecological movement: Some philosophical aspects. In Environmental ethics: Divergence and convergence, eds. Susan J. Armstrong and Richard G . Botzler, 411-421. New York: McGraw-Hi l l . Nathan, Hol ly . 1993. Aboriginal forestry: The role of the First Nations. In Touch wood: B C forests at the crossroads, eds. Ken Drushka, Bob Nixon, and Ray Travers, 137-70. Madeira Park, B C : Harbour Publishing. Neal , David M . , and Brenda D . Phillips. 1990. Female-dominated local social movement organizations in disaster-threat situations. In Women and social protest, eds. Guida West and Rhoda Lois Blumberg, 243-55. N e w York: Oxford University Press. Nelk in , Dorothy. 1981. Nuclear power as a feminist issue. Environment 23 (1): 14-20. 38-9. Nelson, L i n . 1990. The place of women in polluted places. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. eds. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 173-88. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Nesmith, Cathy, and Pamela Wright. 1995. Gender, resources, and environmental management. In Resource and environmental management in Canada: Addressing conflict and uncertainty. 2nd ed., ed. Bruce Mitchell , 80-98. Toronto: Oxford University Press. 393 Newman, Penny. 1994. K i l l i ng legally with toxic waste: Women and the environment in the United States. In Close to home: Women reconnect ecology, health and development worldwide, ed. Vandana Shiva, 43-59. Philadelphia, P A : New Society Publishers. Nixon , Bob. 1993. Public participation: Changing the way we make forest decisions. In Touch wood: B C forests at the crossroads, eds. Ken Drushka, Bob Nixon , and Ray Travers, 23-66. Madeira Park, B C : Harbour Publishing. N T C (Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council). 1991. Nuu-chah-nulth: Land question: Land, sea and resources. Port Alberni, B C : Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. Oakley, Ann . 1981. Interviewing women: A contradiction in terms. In Doing feminist research, ed. Helen Roberts, 30-61. London: Routledge. O'Riordan, T. 1981. Environmentalism. London: Pion. Orr, David W. 1992. Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany, N Y : State University of New York Press. Ortner, Sherry B . 1974. Is female to male as nature is to culture? In Woman, culture and society, eds. Michelle Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, 67-87. Stanford, C A : Stanford University Press. Paolisso, Michael , and Sally W. Yudelman. 1991. Women, poverty and the environment in Latin America. Washington, D C : International Center for Research on Women. Pateman, Carole. 1983. Feminist critiques of the public/private dichotomy. In Public and private in social life, eds. S.I. Benn and G.F. Gaus, 281-303. London: Croom Helm; New York: St Martin's Press. . 1992. Equality, difference, subordination: the politics of motherhood and women's citizenship. In Beyond equality & difference: Citizenship, feminist politics and female subjectivity, eds. Gisela Bock and Susan James, 17-31. London: Routledge. Patton, Michael Quinn. 1982. Qualitative methods and approaches: What are they? In N e w directions for institutional research: Qualitative methods for institutional research, no. 34, ed. E . Kuhns and S.V. Martorana, 3-15. San Francisco, C A : Jossey-Bass. Pearce, David, A n i l Markandya, and Edward B . Barbier. 1989. Blueprint for a green economy: A report for the U K Department of the Environment. London: Earthscan. 394 Pearsall, Mari lyn, ed. 1986. Women and values: Readings in recent feminist philosophy. Belmont, C A : Wadsworth Publishing. Peterson, Abby, and Carolyn Merchant. 1986. 'Peace with the earth': Women and the environmental movement in Sweden. Women's Studies International Forum 9 (5): 465-79. Phillips, Anne. 1991. Engendering democracy. University Park, P A : Pennsylvania State University Press. Plant, Judith. 1990a. Revaluing home: Feminism and bioregionalism. In Home! A bioregional reader, eds. Van Andruss, Christopher Plant, Judith Plant, and Eleanor Wright, 21-3. Philadelphia, P A : New Society Publishers. . 1990b. Searching for common ground: Ecofeminism and bioregionalism. In Home! A bioregional reader, eds. Van Andruss, Christopher Plant, Judith Plant, and Eleanor Wright, 79-82. Philadelphia, P A : New Society Publishers. . 1993. Foreword: The geometry of change. In Circles of strength: Community alternatives to alienation, ed. Helen Forsey, ix -x i i . The New Catalyst Bioregional Series. Philadelphia, P A : New Society Publishers. , ed. 1989. Healing the wounds: The promise of ecofeminism. Foreword by Petra Kel ly . Toronto: Between the Lines. Plant, Christopher, and Judith Plant, eds. 1990. Turtle talk: Voices for a sustainable future. The N e w Catalyst Bioregional Series. Philadelphia, P A : New Society Publishers. , eds. 1992. Putting power in its place: Create community control! The New Catalyst Bioregional Series. Gabriola Island, B C : New Society Publishers. Plaskow, Judith, and Carol P. Christ, eds. 1989. Weaving the visions: N e w patterns in feminist spirituality. New York, N Y : HarperSanFrancisco, A Divis ion of HarperCollins Publishers. Plumwood, V a l . 1991. Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia: Ecological Feminism 6 (1): 3-27. . 1992. Beyond the dualistic assumptions of women, men and nature. The Ecologist 22(1): 8-13. . 1993. Feminism and the mastery of nature. Feminism for Today Series, ed. Teresa Brennan. London: Routledge. 395 . 1994. The Ecopolitics debate and the politics of nature. In Ecological Feminism. ed. Karen J. Warren with the assistance of Barbara Wells-Howe, 64-87. Environmental Philosophies Series, ed. Andrew Brennan. London: Routledge. . 1995. Has democracy failed ecology? A n ecofeminist perspective. Environmental Politics 4 (4): 134-68. Polanyi, Kar l . 1977. The livelihood of man. Edited by Harry W. Pearson. San Francisco: Academic Press. Postel, Sandra. 1992. Denial in the decisive decade. In State of the world 1992: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Lester R. Brown et al., 3-8. New York: W . W . Norton & Company. Postel, Sandra, and Lor i Heise. 1988. Reforesting the earth. In State of the world 1988: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Lester R. Brown et al., 83-100. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Prentice, Susan. 1988. Taking sides: What's wrong with eco-feminism? Women and Environments (Spring): 9-10. Quinby, Lee. 1990. Ecofeminism and the politics of resistance. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. ed. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 122-7. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Ranney, Sally A n n Gumaer. 1992. Heroines and hierarchy: Female leadership in the conservation movement. In Voices from the environmental movement: Perspectives for a new era, ed. Donald Snow, foreword by Patrick F. Noonan, 110-36. Washington, D C : Island Press for The Conservation Fund. Redclift, Michael . 1987. Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. London: Methuen. Rees, Wi l l i am E . 1988. Sustainable development and how to achieve it. U B C Planning Papers, Discussion Paper #15. Vancouver, B C : School of Community & Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. . 1989. The ecological meaning of environment-economy integration. U B C Planning Papers, Discussion paper #18. Vancouver, B C : School of Community & Regional Planning, University of British Columbia. 396 . 1992. Understanding sustainable development: Natural capital and the new world order. School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver B C . Photocopied. . 1995a. Achieving sustainability: Reform or transformation? Journal of Planning Literature 9 (4V. 343-61. . 1995b. More jobs, less damage: A framework for sustainability, growth and employment. Alternatives 21 (4): 24-30. Reinharz, Shulamit. 1992. Feminist methods in social research. With the assistance of Lynn Davidman. New York, N Y : Oxford University Press. Ribbens, Jane. 1989. Interviewing: A n \"unnatural situation\"? Women's Studies International Forum 12 (6): 579-92. Riley, Shamara Shantu. 1993. Ecology is a sistah's issue too. In Ecofeminism and the sacred, ed. Carol J. Adams, 191-204. New York, N Y : Continuum. Roach, Catherine. 1991. Loving your mother: On the woman-nature relation. Hypatia: Ecological Feminism 6 (1): 46-60. Roberts, Barbara. 1983. N o safe place: The war against women. Our Generation 15 (4): 7-26. Rodda, Annabel. 1991. Women and the environment. Women and World Development Series. London: Zed Books. Rosenberg, Harriet. 1990. The kitchen and the multinational corporation: A n analysis of the links between the household and global corporations. Chap, in Through the kitchen window: The politics of home and family. 2d ed., Meg Luxton, Harriet Rosenberg, and Sedef Arat-Koc, 123-50. Network Basic Series. Toronto, O N : Garamond Press. Roszak, Theodore. 1989. Where the wasteland ends: Politics and transcendence in postindustrial society. Berkeley, C A : Celestial Arts. Rousch, G . Jon. 1992. Introduction. In Voices from the environmental movement: Perspectives for a new era, ed. Donald Snow, foreword by Patrick F. Noonan, 3-20. Washington, D C : Island Press for The Conservation Fund. Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1975. New woman new earth: Sexist ideologies and human liberation. A Crossroad Book. New York: Seabury Press. 397 . 1989. Toward an ecological-feminist theology of nature. In Healing the wounds: The promise of ecofeminism. ed. Judith Plant, 145-150. Toronto: Between the Lines. Ryan, John C. 1992. Conserving biological diversity. In State of the world 1992: A Worldwatch Institute report on progress toward a sustainable society. Lester R. Brown, et a l , 9-26. New York: W . W . Norton & Company. Sale, Kirkpatrick. 1985. Dwellers in the land: The bioregional vision. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Salleh, Ar ie l . 1984. Deeper than deep ecology: The eco-feminist connection. Environmental Ethics 6 (4): 339-45. . 1987. A green party: Can the boys do without one? In Green politics in Australia, ed. Drew Hutton, foreword by James McClel land, 67-90. North Ryde, N S W : Angus & Robertson Publishers. . 1991. Review of Staying alive: Women, ecology and development, by Vandana Shiva. In Hypatia: Ecological Feminism 6 (1): 206-14. . 1992. The Ecofeminism/deep ecology debate. Environmental Ethics 14 (3V. 195-216. Sandercock, Leonie, and A n n Forsyth. 1992. A gender agenda: New directions for planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (1): 49-59. Sandilands, Catriona. 1993. Review of Celebrating the land: Women's nature writings. 1850-1991. ed. Karen Knowles. In Canadian Woman Studies\Les Cahiers de la Femme 13 (3): 105-6. . 1994. Political animals: The paradox of ecofeminist politics. The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophv 11 (4): 167-72. Schechter, Susan. 1982. Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women's movement. Boston: South End Press. Schmid, Carol. 1990. Women in the West German Green Party: The uneasy alliance of ecology and feminism. In Women and social protest, eds. Guida West and Rhoda Lois Blumberg, 225-42. New York: Oxford University Press. Schon, Donald A . . 1980. Framing and reframing the problems of cities. In Making cities work: The dynamics of urban innovation, eds. David Morley, Stuart Proudfoot, and Thomas Burns, 31-65. London: Croom Helm. 398 Schumacher, E .F . 1977. A guide for the perplexed. New York: Harper & Row. S C S D (Steering Committee for Sustainable Development). 1989a. Responding to the challenge: Community based sustainable development: A brief to the Environment and Land Use Committee of the B . C . Cabinet. Tofino, B C : Steering Committee for Sustainable Development, District of Tofino, Tofino-Long Beach Chamber of Commerce. May 1989. Photocopied. . 1989b. Sustainable development strategy for Clayoquot Sound: A project proposal. Tofino, B C : Steering Committee of the District of the District Council of Tofino and the Tofino-Long Beach Chamber of Commerce. May 1989. Photocopied. . 1989c. Sustainable development in Clayoquot Sound. Sustainable Development Forum Reports. Tofino, B C : Steering Committee for Sustainable Development. March 1989. Photocopied. . 1989d. Clayoquot Sound sustainable development: Preliminary workshop summaries. Tofino, B C : Steering Committee for Sustainable Development. July 1989. Photocopied. Seager, Joni. 1993. Earth follies: Coming to feminist terms with the global environmental crisis. New York: Routledge. Seed, John, Joanna Macy, Pat Fleming, and Arne Naess. 1988. Thinking like a mountain: Towards a council of all beings. Santa Cruz, C A : N e w Society Publishers. Segal, Lynne. 1987. Is the future female?: Troubled thoughts on contemporary feminism. London: Virago Books. Seidman, L E . 1991. Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Sells, Jennifer. 1991. A comparison of ecofeminist and mainstream rational planning approaches. Environments 21 (1): 72-4. Sherwood, Mary P. 1991. A woman takes on Walden. A s told to Laurie Corliss Glasheen. Woman of Power. 20 (Spring): 46-7. Shiva, Vandana. 1988. Staying alive: Women, ecology and development. London: Zed Books; New Delhi: K a l i for Women. 399 . 1993. Monocultures of the mind. The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophv 10 (4): 132-5. , ed. 1994. Close to home: Women reconnect ecology, health and development worldwide. Philadelphia, P A : New Society Publishers. Shute, Nancy. 1987. Toxic green: Mothers in arms take on the lawn chemical industry. The Amicus Journal (Summer): 10-16. Simmons, Pam. 1992. Editorial: The challenge of feminism. The Ecologist 22 (1): 2-3. Simon, Julian L . 1980. Resources, population, environment: A n oversupply of false bad news. Science 208 (27): 1431-37. Simon, Julian, and Herman Kahn, eds. 1984. The resourceful earth. Oxford: Basil Blackwell . Sheer, Deborah. 1994. Wrongs of passage: Three challenges to the maturing of ecofeminism. In Ecological feminism, ed. Karen J. Warren with the assistance of Barbara Wells-Howe, 29-41. Environmental Philosophies Series, ed. Andrew Brennan. London: Routledge. Smith, Andy. 1993. For all those who were Indian in a former life. In Ecofeminism and the sacred, ed. Carol J. Adams, 168-71. New York, N Y : Continuum Publishing. Smith, Dorothy E . 1987. The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Snow, Donald. 1992. Inside the environmental movement: Meeting the leadership challenge. With a Foreword by Patrick F. Noonan. Washington D C : Island Press for The Conservation Fund. Sontheimer, Sally, ed. 1991. Women and the environment: A reader: Crisis and development in the Third World. New York: Monthly Review Press. Spretnak, Charlene. 1986. The spiritual dimension of green politics. Santa Fe, N M : Bear & Company. . 1990. Ecofeminism: Our roots and flowering. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. eds. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 3-14. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. 400 . 1991. States of grace: The recovery of meaning in the postmodern age. N e w York: HarperSanFrancisco, a division of Harper Collins. . 1993. Earthbody and personal body as sacred. In Ecofeminism and the sacred. ed. Carol J. Adams, 261-80. New York, N Y : Continuum Publishing. Spretnak, Charlene, and Fritjof Capra. 1986. Green politics. In collaboration with Rudiger Lutz. Santa Fe, N M : Bear & Company. Stake, Robert E . 1994. Case Studies. In Handbook of qualitative research, eds. Norman K . Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 236-47. Thousand Oaks, C A : Sage Publications. Starhawk. 1982. Dreaming the dark: Magic, sex & politics. Boston, M A : Beacon Press. . 1987. Truth or dare: Encounters with power, authority, and mystery. San , Francisco, C A : Harper & Row. . 1990. Power, authority, and mystery: Ecofeminism and earth-based spirituality. In Reweaving the World: The emergence of ecofeminism. eds. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 73-86. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Statistics Canada. 1993. Industry and class of worker. Ottawa: Industry, Science and Technology Canada. 1991 Census of Canada, cat. no. 93-326, 132-5. Steger, Mary A n n E. , and Stephanie L . Witt. 1989. Gender differences in environmental orientations: A comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the U.S . . The Western Political Quarterly 42 (4): 627-49. Stout-Wiegand, Nancy, and Roger B . Trent. 1983. Sex differences in attitudes toward new energy resource developments. Rural Sociology 48 (4): 637-46.' Suttles, Wayne. 1990. Introduction. In Northwest Coast, ed. Wayne Suttles, 1-15. V o l 7 of Handbook of North American Indians, ed. Wi l l iam C. Sturtevant. Washington, D C : Smithsonian Institution. Swift, Jamie. 1983. Cut and run: The assault on Canada's forests. Toronto: Between The Lines. Taylor, Duncan M . 1992. Disagreeing on the basics: Environmental debates reflect competing world views. Alternatives 18 (3): 26-33. 401 Taylor, Paul W . 1994. The ethics of respect for nature. In The environmental ethics and policy book: Philosophy, ecology, economics, ed. Donald VanDeVeer and Christine Pierce, 124-138. Belmont, C A : Wadsworth Publishing, Wadsworth. Tindall , David, and Noreen Begoray. 1993. Old growth defenders: The battle for the Carmanah Valley. In Environmental stewardship: Studies in active earthkeeping. ed. Sally Lerner, 297-322. Department of Geography Publication Series, ed. Bruce Mitchel l . Waterloo, O N : Department of Geography, University of Waterloo. Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. Boulder, C O : Westview Press. Tronto, Joan C. 1989. Women and caring: What can feminists learn about morality from caring? In Gender/body /knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing, eds. Al i son M . Jaggar and Susan R. Bordo, 172-87. New Brunswick, N J : Rutgers University Press. U C S (Union of Concerned Scientists). 1992. Union of concerned scientists issues \"The Warning.\" International Society for Ecological Economics Newsletter 3 (4): 5-6. U N D P (United Nations Development Programme). 1993. Human Development Report 1993. N e w York, N Y : Oxford University Press. V a n Liere, Kent D . , and Riley E . Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. The Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (2): 181-97. . 1981. Environmental concern: Does it make a difference how it's measured? Environment and Behavior 13 (6): 651-76. Vance, Joan E . 1990. Tree planning: A guide to public involvement in forest stewardship. Vancouver, B C : B C Public Interest Advocacy Centre. Vance, Linda. 1993. Ecofeminism and the politics of reality. In Ecofeminism: Women. animals, nature, ed. Greta Gaard, 118-45. Ethic and Action Series, ed. Tom Regan. Philadelphia, P A : Temple University Press. Viezzer, Moemma. 1992. Learning for environmental action. Convergence 25 (2): 3-8. Voelker, Denise. 1988a. Acting globally: Organizer Karen Pickett. Woman of Power. 9 (Spring): 34-5. 402 . 1988b. A visit to Parrot's Wood: Belize's Dora Weyer. Woman of Power. 9 (Spring): 32-3. Wacker, Corinne. 1994. Sustainable development through women's groups: A cultural approach to sustainable development. In Feminist perspectives on sustainable development, ed. Wendy Harcourt, 128-42. London: Zed Books; Rome: Society for International Development. Wackernagel, Mathis, and Wil l iam E . Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, B C : New Society Publishers. Walby, Sylvia. 1989. Theorising patriarchy. Sociology 23 (2): 213-34. Waring, Mari lyn. 1988. If women counted: A new feminist economics. Introduction by Gloria Steinem. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, a Divis ion of HarperCollins. Warren, Karen J. 1987. Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environmental Ethics 9(1): 3-20. . 1988. Toward an ecofeminist ethic. Studies in the Humanities 15 (2): 140-56. _ _ . 1990. The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics 12 (2): 125-46. . 1991. The quilt of ecological feminism: A n interview with Karen J. Warren. Interview by Danielle Wirth and Pat Boddy. Woman of Power. 20 (Spring): 64-8. . 1994a. Introduction. In Ecological feminism, ed. Karen J. Warren with the assistance of Barbara Wells-Howe, 1-7. Environmental Philosophies Series, ed. Andrew Brennan. London: Routledge. . 1994b. Toward an ecofeminist peace politics. In Ecological feminism, ed. Karen J. Warren with the assistance of Barbara Wells-Howe, 179-199. Environmental Philosophies Series, ed. Andrew Brennan. London: Routledge. _ , ed. 1994c. Ecological feminism. With the assistance of Barbara Wells-Howe. Environmental Philosophies Series, ed. Andrew Brennan. London: Routledge. Warren, Karen J., and J im Cheney. 1991. Ecological feminism and ecosystem ecology. Hypatia: Ecological Feminism 6 (1): 179-97. W C E D (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our common future. N e w York: Oxford University Press. 403 W E D O (Women's Environment & Development Organization). 1992. Official report: World women's congress for a healthy planet. 8-12 November 1991. M i a m i . Florida. U S A . N e w York: W E D O . Weedon, Chris. 1987. Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Cambridge, M A : Blackwell . West, Guida, and Rlioda Lois Blumberg, eds. 1990. Women and social protest. N e w York: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, Charlene Eldridge, and Peggy L . Chin. 1984. Peace & power: A handbook of feminist process. Buffalo, N Y : Margaretdaughters. Whitbeck, Caroline. 1986. Theories of sex difference. In Women and values: Readings in recent feminist philosophy, ed. Mari lyn Pearsall, 34-50. Belmont, C A : Wadsworth Publishing. White, Lynn Jr. 1967. The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155 : 1203-07. White/Barton Research Associates. 1991. District of Tofino community values survey. Submitted to Community Values Working Group, the Tofino Steering Committee for Sustainable Development and the District of Tofino Council. January 1991. Wil l iams, Delores S. 1993. Sin, nature, and black women's bodies. In Ecofeminism and the sacred, ed. Carol J. Adams, 24-9. New York, N Y : Continuum Publishing. Wilshire, Donna. 1989. The uses of myth, image, and the female body in re-visioning knowledge. In Gender/bodv/knowledge: Feminist reconstructions of being and knowing, eds. Al i son M . Jaggar and Susan R. Bordo, 92-114. New Brunswick, N J : Rutgers University Press. Wood, Robert S.. 1992. Analysis of the forest industry employment situation in Port Alberni. Forest Planning Canada 8 (2): 22-29. Worster, Donald. 1985. Nature's economy: A history of ecological ideas. San Francisco, C A : Sierra Club Books, 1977; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (page references are to reprint edition). . 1987. The vulnerable earth: Toward a planetary history. Environmental Review 11 (2): 87-103. 404 . 1993. The ecology of order and chaos. In Environmental ethics: Divergence and convergence, eds. Susan J. Armstrong and Richard G . Botzler, 39-49. N e w York: M c G r a w - H i l l . Wright, W . John. 1992. The Angus Reid Report: A shift in the Canadian public mindset: A new environmental segmentation. The Canadian Green Marketing Alert 2 (3): 4-8. Y i n , Robert K . 1989. Case study research: Design and methods. Foreword by Donald T. Campbell. Applied Social Research Methods Series Volume 5. Newbury Park, C A : Sage Publications. Zimmerman, Michael E . 1990. Deep ecology and ecofeminism: The emerging dialogue. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. ed. Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 138-54. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Zita, Jacquelyn N . 1992. The future of feminist sex inquiry. In The knowledge explosion: Generations of feminist scholarship, eds. Cheris Kramarae and Dale Spender, 480-94. Athene Series: A n International Collection of Feminist Books, eds. Gloria Bowles, Renate Kle in , Janice Raymond. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. 405 A P P E N D I X A 406 A - l Interview Guide Re: Gender and Sustainability: Women's Environmental Activism in Clayoquot Sound 1. Before we begin, could you tell me a bit about yourself? What things do you think are important in describing who you are? 2. H o w long have you lived in this community? 3. What are your main sources of income/livelihood? 4. Could you tell me something about the concerns that have motivated you to become active around environmental issues in Clayoquot Sound? Why are these of concern to you personally? 5. What was it that motivated you to act on your concerns? Can you tell me about the kinds of activism that you have been involved in? 6. H o w do you feel about your activism? 7. In the course of your activism, have you ever felt discriminated against as a woman? Have you experienced or observed sexist behaviours directed to you or other women? 8. Do you generally feel that your activism is supported by others? Are there things that make it difficult for you to be as active as you would like to be? What keeps you going (sources of support, inspiration, motivation). 9. Has your activism affected your life in any way, either negatively or positively? 10. Do you have any visions for this region? Could you share them with me? 11. H o w do we begin to move towards your vision? Do you think it w i l l be easy or difficult? 12. In your opinion, does it matter whether, or how much, women participate in making decisions about sustainability in Clayoquot Sound? Why or why not? 13. H o w would you describe your relationship to the forests of Clayoquot Sound? 14. Is there anything else you would like to add? 15. Stats: age, education, income, children 407 A-2 Participant Review Form Re: Gender and Sustainability: Women's Environmental Activism in Clayoquot Sound Researcher: Priscilla Boucher, School of Community & Regional Planning, U B C I have been given the opportunity to review the transcript of my interview and the research report summarizing the interviews. I understand that I have the right to request strict confidentiality and anonymity. The right to strict confidentiality and anonymity (Choose one) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 I wish to exercise this right. I wish my identity to remain anonymous. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 I hereby waive this right and choose, instead, to have my identity revealed. Feedback on personal quotes and stories I have read the quotes and stories attributed to me. Please check one: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 I feel comfortable with the release of these quotes and stories as presented. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 There are inaccuracies on the following pages (the researcher w i l l contact to discuss) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 I do not feel that my identity has been adequately protected. I am particularly concerned about the following pages (the researcher w i l l contact to discuss) Name choice The first name by which I wish to be referred to in this research is: General feedback \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 I have provided general feedback on the reverse of this form Name (please print): Signed: Date: Phone: Please return by June 30, 1997 to: Priscilla Boucher [address & phone number included] 408 "@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "1998-05"@en . "10.14288/1.0088739"@en . "eng"@en . "Planning"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "Ecology, feminism, and planning : lessons from women\u00E2\u0080\u0099s enviromental activism in Clayoquot Sound"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/8565"@en .