This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 02 December 2014, At: 14:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Women & PoliticsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzwp20

Gender, FeministConsciousness, and theEnvironmentManjusha Gupte aa Purdue University , USAPublished online: 15 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Manjusha Gupte (2002) Gender, Feminist Consciousness, and theEnvironment, Women & Politics, 24:1, 47-62, DOI: 10.1300/J014v24n01_03

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J014v24n01_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Gender, Feminist Consciousness,and the Environment:

Exploring the “Natural” Connection

Manjusha Gupte, Purdue University

ABSTRACT. Ecofeminists have long argued that due to biological dif-ferences between the sexes, women are inherently closer to nature thanmen. They also contend that women “naturally” care for the environmentas an extension of their caring roles, being socialized as mothers andcaregivers. Subsequently, women would then tend to support environ-mental issues and causes more than men. Using the 1996 National Elec-tion Studies survey data, this study constructs an alternate model thatexamines whether feminist consciousness, along with other sociodemo-graphic factors such as age, education, income, race, ideology, and partyidentification, can explain support for the environment. The results re-veal that gender is not statistically significant in explaining environmen-tal support, while age, ideology, party identification, and feministconsciousness are. These findings suggest that gender may not have a di-rect all-encompassing effect, but a more subtle one mediated by effectsof age, party identification, and ideology. Moreover, both men andwomen who exhibit feminist beliefs are more likely to be supportive ofenvironmental issues. [Article copies available for a fee from The HaworthDocument Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2002 by TheHaworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

INTRODUCTION

The importance of environmental problems and epistemological ad-vances in feminist theory has given rise to a growing body of literature

Women & Politics, Vol. 24(1) 2002http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J014

2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

concerned with the relationship of women with the environment. Al-though there are ongoing debates about the ideological, social, and ma-terialist basis of ecofeminism, the basic themes center around thepatriarchal construction of women as being closer to nature and men asbeing closer to culture.1 Thus, linkages are made between the domina-tion and oppression of women and the domination and exploitation ofnature. Given the underlying commonality between the premises andgoals of the women’s movement and the environmental movement asoutlined by ecofeminists, this research intends to address this gap by ex-plicitly ascertaining whether women are appreciably more supportiveof the environment than men. At a more specific level, this would bedone by examining public opinion on issues of environmental policy.While extensive studies have been conducted on public support for theenvironment, the category of gender still merits further analytic re-search. This study uses the concept of feminist consciousness to betterunderstand the relationship between gender and the environment, andthus help in ascertaining what role, if any, gender plays in influencingsupport on environmental issues.

SIGNIFICANCE

One of the most common themes in the cultural ecofeminist literaturehas been the essentialist linkage between women and the environment.The ecofeminist discourse contends that women, being the oppressedcategory, are able to identify better with the exploitation of nature byman and thus have a special stake in ending this exploitation (Shiva1989). Women’s position is seen as essentially being closer to naturebecause within the sexual division of labor their work has always en-tailed a close relationship with nature. This approach perceives thewoman-nature relation as one of reciprocity, symbiosis, and harmony(Shiva 1989). However, by the same logic, men are incapable of dealingwith nature in similar ways (Kurian 2000, 58). As the domination ofwomen and the domination of nature have occurred together, womenhave a particular stake in ending the domination of nature.2 The conten-tion is that the feminist movement and the environmental movementboth stand for egalitarian, non-hierarchical systems (Agarwal 1992; Shiva1989). Consequently, women bring in their own concerns, life experi-ences, values, and understanding that make them the “natural” constitu-ency for environmental conservation (Jackson 1993a). Hence, they are

48 WOMEN & POLITICS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

assumed to be at the forefront of environmental activities and conserva-tion movements.

The second argument has been that women “naturally” care for theenvironment as an extension of their caring roles. Women are socializedto be caregivers and hence tend to be more nurturing and sensitive thanmen (Blocker and Eckberg 1997; Chodorow 1974; Gilligan 1982). Rich(1976) locates women’s closest relation to nature in motherhood. Thisis linked with what she calls the “cosmic essence of womanhood,”which connects women with the essentially creative and nurturing as-pects of nature. Thus, as it can be seen, this special relationship betweenwomen and their environment and the resultant altruistic behavior ofwomen in the protection and defense of nature is an oft-repeated themeby ecofeminists (Kurian 2000). For Mies (1986), reproduction, that is,providing the basic necessities for family survival, constitutes women’scloser relation to nature. Through this double role, women’s under-standing of nature is superior to men’s. Women not only work closer tonature, women “are” nature because they give birth and nurture theirchildren, hence they are doubly exploited within patriarchal societyglobally (Diamond and Orenstein 1990; Griffin 1978; Merchant 1979).Shapiro and Mahajan’s study (1986) finds that women may have ex-tended the scope of their more traditional roles (socialized as caretakersand nurturers) to encompass the problems of society as a whole. Hence,the issues of concern to women might include policies to help those inneed and also a distinct set of regulatory policies, such as environmentalregulation, which are intended to protect the public (Shapiro andMahajan 1986).

As seen from the above arguments, some ecofeminists tend to ro-manticize the relationship of women with nature. Their essentialist ar-guments, however, have not only been criticized by many feminists, butalso other scholars, for example, by social ecofeminists and develop-ment theorists (Agarwal 1992; Biehl 1991; Eckersley 1992; Jackson1993a).3 Secondly, as Agarwal argues, cultural ecofeminism locates thedomination of women and of nature almost solely in ideology, neglect-ing the material sources of this dominance, i.e., the social, economic,and political structures within which these constructs are produced andtransformed (1992, 122). This formulation is problematic, given thatthe concepts of nature, culture, and gender are historically and sociallyconstructed and vary across and within cultures and time periods(Agarwal 1992). The most trenchant criticism, however, still remainsthat by making the connection between women and nature to biology,ecofeminism is indulging in essentialism.4

Manjusha Gupte 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Another problematic aspect of cultural ecofeminist theories has beenthat while stressing women’s identity with nature, they neglect the inter-section of race, ethnicity, gender, and class relations. Cultural ecofeministtheorists tend to homogenize women as a category and there is a tendencyto romanticize their special powers (Braidotti et al. 1994). Women as adistinct group differentiated on the basis of gender, however, do notevince equal support for the environment (Jackson 1993a). Womenfrom different communities may have different priorities for environ-mental issues, depending on their position in society (Agarwal 1992).For example, although Shiva (1989) uses examples of women from de-veloping countries while expounding her theory of ecofeminism, shetends to regard them as a unitary category and fails to differentiateamong women by class, race, and ethnicity. Agarwal also argues thatcultural ecofeminism does not adequately deal with forms of domina-tion other than gender, such as ethnicity and caste (that are sometimesculture-specific), which also impinge critically on women’s position(1992, 122). Some scholars have argued that minority communities,such as African-American and Hispanic, disparately face environmen-tal hazards in comparison to white communities; hence, women fromthese communities may exhibit more concern towards environmentalissues (Bullard 1993; Carroll 1991; J. Hamilton 1995). One can see thatin the context of developing countries, women can have different mana-gerial priorities toward different plant species, depending on their casteand class (Sarin 1997).

Furthermore, the effects of demographic characteristics such as ageand socioeconomic status also play an important role in determiningsupport for the environment. The sociopolitical literature has examinedthe capacity of various factors such as age, gender, economic class, edu-cation, religion, and region in an effort to determine what makes someindividuals more environmentally conscious than others. These socialbases of environmental concern have been measured for theoretical rea-sons as well as for their policy implications (Van Liere and Dunlap1980). Studies show that age has been one of the strongest and mostconsistent predictors of environmental concern (Buttel 1979; Kanagy,Humphrey, and Firebaugh 1994; Mohai and Twight 1987). Abramsonand Inglehart (1994) argue that there has been a post-materialist shift inenvironmental concern that has manifested itself through the behaviorof younger cohorts. On a similar cohort basis, Inglehart (1997) has ar-gued that post-materialist values emphasizing quality of life issues andenvironmental protection emerge among age-cohorts whose formativeexperiences occur during periods of economic prosperity. According to

50 WOMEN & POLITICS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Malkis and Grasmick’s (1977) theory of cohort differences, youngercohorts would be more committed to environmental reform due to thecontinued exposure to alarming information on environmental deterio-ration and to living through environmental disasters in the formativeand impressionable period in their lives. They further argue that thiswould create an “ecology-minded” generation whose commitment toenvironmental issues will not disappear as they move into adulthood(Malkis and Grasmick 1977). Overall, there seems to be an agreementthat there has been some sort of generational change in influencing per-spectives toward the environment.

Apart from age, some studies have found that education and incomealso influence public attitudes regarding the environment (Dietz, Stern,and Guagnano 1998, 463; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980, 189). This drawson the fact that people who are highly educated are more aware aboutenvironmental problems. Further, Maslow’s theory of hierarchy ofneeds contends that the upper and middle classes have solved their basicmaterial needs and thus are free to focus on the more aesthetic aspects ofhuman existence (Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). While education islikely to be associated positively with environmental concern, there ismixed evidence regarding the relationship between income and envi-ronmental support (Buttel and Flinn 1974; Malkis and Grasmick 1977;Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997). Among other factors that areconsidered to have played a dominant role in stimulating concern forenvironmental issues have been the proximity of an environmentalhealth risk, as well as a general increase in public awareness about theenvironment due to dramatic events such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill,the Bhopal gas leak, the Chernobyl disaster, Three Mile Island, andLove Canal (Brown, Williams, and Lees-Haley 1993; Gregory, Brown,and Knetsch 1996; Hamilton 1985; Kanagy, Humphrey, and Firebaugh1994).

In addition to the above discussed demographic variables, this studyincludes another variable in the analysis, that of feminist consciousness.This concept has rarely been used in the context of environmental atti-tudes, since the stress has mainly been on gender differences. Conoverand Sapiro define feminist consciousness as “an awareness of and sen-sitivity to the unequal and gendered nature of society and a commitmentto ending the inequalities” (1993, 1084). Cook’s (1989) study of femi-nist consciousness, while confining itself to female respondents, foundthat those who were young, college educated, professionally employed,high income, urban, liberal, and those showing less religiosity, werelikely to exhibit feminist consciousness. Scholars, such as Klein (1984),

Manjusha Gupte 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

have argued that feminist consciousness is based on personal experi-ence. Thus, only women could possess or experience feminist con-sciousness, while men could only feel feminist sympathy (Klein 1984).However, Reingold and Foust’s study (1998) shows that both men’sand women’s feminist consciousness is rooted in their ideological be-liefs. Someone who is a feminist or sympathetic to feminist concerns isbetter able to understand domination of women and the exploitation ofnatural resources. Thus, it is not being a woman in and of itself thatleads to support for the environment; instead, it is a sense of feministconsciousness (regardless of the person’s gender) that makes one sup-portive of environmental issues. The importance of this study lies in thefact that previous attitudinal studies have only examined gender differencesin explaining support for the environment, while neglecting the concept offeminist consciousness. Apart from Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart’swork, feminist consciousness has not been used to determine publicopinion regarding the environment, although it has been used in exam-ining other issues, for example, war study (Conover and Sapiro 1993).5

RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESIS

This study argues that while women may seem to be more concernedabout the environment, their concern is not based only on their gender. Menmay express greater support for the environment in some areas (like protest-ing and taking part in environmental rallies), while women may emphasizeother actions like green shopping and recycling. Similarly, not all womenwill be equally concerned about the environment, and support for the envi-ronment will be mediated by effects of age, education, income, and ideology.Thus, men and women who have a liberal orientation and belong to the sameage and class may exhibit similar patterns of support for the environment.Given this premise, it is deemed necessary to construct a testable alternativemodel to explain the relationship between gender and environment.

The following hypotheses have been generated from the above theoreticalperspective:

H1: Age, ideology, education, and income will prove to be morepowerful indicators of support for the environment than gender.

H2: Feminist consciousness will explain more support for the en-vironment than gender differences.

52 WOMEN & POLITICS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The 1996 National Election Studies data set was used for this analy-sis as this survey contains significant vantage points for exploring gen-der views on environmentalism. First, the information provided in thissurvey is national level data, representative of both men and women.Second, the survey has a sufficient number of respondents (sample sizeof 1,714), 768 male respondents (44.80%) and 946 (55.19%) women re-spondents, in both cases the sample sizes are large enough to make pre-dictions about the general population. The demographic characteristicsof the respondents include educational level, income level, age, gender,race, ethnicity, and other variables that are necessary for conductingthis study.

This study used four items from the NES 1996 survey that attemptedto tap the respondents’ support for the environmental policies.6 Theseitems were: spending on the environment, efforts to protect the environ-ment, environmental regulation, and protecting jobs versus the environ-ment.7 The items were coded in a way that lower scores meant lesssupport for the environment and higher scores reflected more support.

The actual wording of the questions was as follows:

• “Should federal spending on improving and protecting the envi-ronment be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?”

• “Do you think the government should put less, the same amount,or more effort into improving and protecting the environment?”

• “Where would you place yourself on the environmental regulationscale?”

• “Where would you place yourself on the job/environment scale?”

These items were then factor analyzed and the results of the principalcomponent analysis (unrotated) showed that all four items loaded on a singlecomponent, explaining 60.45% of the variance, as seen in Table 1. The factorloadings for each item were: .785 for environmental spending, .803 for envi-ronmental protection, .782 for environmental regulation, and .743 for envi-ronment versus jobs.

The reliability of the scale was judged using Cronbach’s Alpha,which is generally used as an index of the internal consistency amongitems in a scale. The value of the standardized alpha coefficient was.781 for the environmental support scale, indicating good reliability.

The factor score (which measured environmental support) obtainedfrom running the above factor analysis was then used as the dependent

Manjusha Gupte 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

variable in the first multiple regression analysis, as seen in Table 2. Theregression analysis helped to assess the extent to which the variationin environmental attitudes could be explained by an array of independ-ent predictor variables like gender, age, education, income, partyidentification, political ideology, and race.8 Gender was dummy codedwith 0 = male and 1 = female. Race was also dummy coded with 0 =white and 1 = non-white. Age was measured in years. Education wasscored according to the number of years spent in school. Income wasscored as the respondent’s family income from below $2,999 to$150,000. Party identification was scored from 1 to 3 with 1 = Repub-lican, 2 = moderate, and 3 = Democrat. Political ideology was scoredfrom 1 to 3 with 1 = conservative, 2 = moderate, and 3 = liberal. The 7point women’s rights scale was used as an indicator of feminist con-sciousness, with 1 = a woman’s place is in the home and 7 = womenand men should have equal rights.9 This variable measuring support forwomen’s rights was added to the second regression equation to under-score the differences between feminist consciousness and gender.

The results of the second regression analysis have been included inTable 3. In the first equation, the independent variables were able to ex-plain 21% of the variance in determining support for the environment. Andin the second regression equation, the six variables together were able toaccount for 25% of the variance in support for the environment. In both theequations, age, political ideology, and party identification were stronglystatistically significant at the 0.01 level. This finding was consistent withprevious studies that found younger, politically liberal citizens and Demo-crats to be more supportive of the environment (Buttel 1987; Buttel andFlinn 1978; Van Liere and Dunlap 1980). However, in both the equations,

54 WOMEN & POLITICS

TABLE 1. Factor Analysis

Item Factor Loadings Eigenvalues Percentageof Variance

Communalities

EnvironmentalRegulation

.780 2.418 60.45 .608

Environmentversus Jobs

.740 .674 16.852 .548

EnvironmentalProtection

.803 .504 12.607 .645

EnvironmentalSpending

.786 .403 10.085 .617

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

income and education were not significant, thus failing to support the hy-pothesized positive associations. Similarly, gender and race were not sig-nificant at all in either equation.10 These findings confirm the hypothesisthat gender does not play a significant role in determining support for theenvironment. Feminist consciousness was statistically significant at the0.01 level, showing that respondents who hold feminist beliefs are morelikely to support policies for protecting the environment. Thus, variationin environmental attitudes is positively related to younger age, liberal po-litical ideology, identification with the Democratic party, and feminist be-liefs.

Manjusha Gupte 55

TABLE 2. Determinants of Environmental Support

Environmental Support

Independent Variables B(se)

B(se)

Age �.006** .005**

(.002) (.002)

DemocraticPartyIdentification

.316** .116**

(.038) (.017)

Female �.06 �.04

(.063) (.019)

Education .01 �.01

(.014) (.013)

Non-White �.107 .09

(.104) (.102)

Income .002 .002

(.005) (.005)

Liberalism .231** .155**

(.044) (.026)

FeministBeliefs

.123**

(.019)

Multiple R .218 .259

Adjusted RSquare

.212 .253

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

TA

BLE

3.B

ivar

iate

Cor

rela

tions

Bet

wee

nIn

depe

nden

tVar

iabl

es

Ag

eE

du

cati

on

Inco

me

Fem

ale

Dem

ocr

atic

Par

tyId

enti

fica

tio

n

Lib

eral

ism

No

n-W

hit

eF

emin

ist

Bel

iefs

Ag

e1.

00�.2

26**

�.0

41*

.032

�.0

01�.1

53**

�.0

73**

�.2

16**

Ed

uca

tio

n1.

00.4

38**

�.0

84**

�.1

30**

.075

**�

.113

**.1

74**

Inco

me

1.00

�.3

71�.1

53**

�.0

36�

.152

**.1

28**

Fem

ale

1.00

.130

**.1

43**

.030

.010

Dem

ocr

atic

Par

tyId

enti

fica

tio

n

1.00

.538

**.2

00**

.148

**

Lib

eral

ism

1.00

.071

**.2

71**

No

n-W

hit

e1.

00�

.007

Fem

inis

tB

elie

fs1.

00

*p

<0.

05;*

*p

<0.

01;O

ne-t

aile

dte

st

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

DISCUSSION

Just as previous studies have shown, some of the social bases of envi-ronmental support, such as age and ideology, have remained steadyover time (Jones and Dunlap 1992). This research also found that agewas negatively correlated with environmental concern, with youngercohorts being more environmentally conscious than their older counter-parts.11 The association between education and environmental supportand income and environmental support was ambiguous, thus showingthat these variables were not adequate predictors of environmental sup-port. Given the structure of the two party system in the United States,party identification and political ideology are significantly related tovariation in environmental support. Democrats and liberals tend to bemore environmentally concerned than Republicans and conservatives.Thus, both Democrat men and women are more environmentally con-scious than Republican men and women. However, the results ofcrosstabulations between gender and party identification reveal thatwithin Democrats and Republicans, there are no significant differencesbetween men and women. For instance, Republican women are not ap-preciably more supportive of the environment than their male counter-parts, nor do Democrat women evince more environmental concernthan Democrat men.

This study found that citizens who exhibited feminist consciousness,i.e., were supportive of women’s rights, irrespective of their gender,were more supportive of the environment than people who believed thata woman’s place was at home. While some previous studies, such asthose by Blocker and Eckberg (1997), have found a significant (albeitweak) correlation between gender and environmental concern, others,such as Van Liere and Dunlap (1980) and Stern, Dietz, and Kalof(1993), have found no significant relationship between environmentand gender. Given this inconsistency in results, it may point to a ten-dency for men to express greater support for the environment in someareas, whereas women may indicate support in other areas. Some stud-ies show that women are more active regarding local and safety issuessuch as nuclear waste disposal (Blocker and Eckberg 1989; Davidsonand Freudenberg 1996; Schahn and Holzer 1990). Similarly, othershave found that men may be more likely than women to engage in polit-ical behaviors like participating in environmental rallies, while womenwere more likely to participate in environmentally protective consumerbehaviors like recycling and green consumerism (Scott and Willits1994). Authors like Bord and O’Connor (1997) argue that the driving

Manjusha Gupte 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

force behind gender differences in environmental surveys is differencesin perceived vulnerability to risks from the environment, not necessar-ily differences in ecological sensibilities. As Jackson argues, “womenhave no inherent or definitive closeness to nature, but socially con-structed relations to natural resources which vary for different groups ofwomen, and for individual women during the course of a lifetime”(1993b, 405). These trends perhaps point to the fact that gender may nothave a direct all-encompassing effect, but a more subtle one, mediated byeffects of race, class, and ideology. Thus, as the results of this study haveshown, it is not biological determinism per se that determines support forthe environment, but other factors like life experiences, socialization, andpolitical ideology. These factors also shape feminist consciousness(which in this context can be understood as identification with women’srights). Irrespective of one’s gender, those citizens that exhibit feministconsciousness are more likely to espouse support for the environment.Perhaps holding feminist beliefs, which entails an understanding ofwomen’s domination, is likely to sensitize them to environmental con-cerns like the exploitation of resources. It could also be surmised thatthose who are Democrats and more liberal in their outlook, are morelikely to espouse feminist beliefs and support environmental issues(Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart 1997). While this study has examinedthe issue of gender and the environment within the American context,future research needs to undertake statistical analyses of the relation-ship between women and environment in the global context, especiallyin developing countries, where rural women, more than men, interactmore with nature on a daily basis when they go out to collect water,fuelwood, and fodder.

NOTES

The author wishes to thank Rosalee Clawson, Laurel Weldon, Robert Bartlett, HarryPotter, and Bill Shaffer for helpful comments on this paper.

1. Several variations of ecofeminism have emerged, categorized as liberal, Marx-ist, social, and cultural ecofeminism; each defines itself separately from each other.While some scholars like Sturgeon (1997) argue that these variations are still an inte-gral part of the original whole of ecofeminism, others regard the different strains ofecofeminist thought as being distinct from each other (Dryzek 1997). This article fo-cuses on one specific trend of thought known as cultural ecofeminism. According toKurian, “cultural ecofeminists see ecofeminism as affirming women’s essential con-nections with nature,” while “socialist ecofeminists see gender as being socially con-structed” (2000, 58).

58 WOMEN & POLITICS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

2. Some ecofeminist perspectives also emphasize spirituality through the celebration ofpaganism, cultural traditions of indigenous peoples, and ancient European goddess cultures(Kurian 2000, 57).

3. Dryzek defines social ecofeminists as “those who reject biological essentialism andits cultural trappings. While social ecofeminists also critique patriarchy, they regard it as oneamong a number of oppressions rather than the root of all oppressions” (1997, 179-180).

4. Ecofeminists like Shiva portray the Chipko movement in India as an illustration ofwomen’s affinity with nature. However, other scholars like Guha (1989) and Jain (1984)show that the Chipko movement was “only one in a series of peasant protest movementsagainst commercial forestry” that was being promoted by the state (Guha 1989, 174).

5. Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart (1999) use bivariate and discriminant analysis togauge the universality of ecofeminism.

6. The feeling thermometer on “environmentalists” was not used in this study as it doesnot try to gauge the respondent’s environmental support or concern. This study focuses onsupport for the environment, and not environmental activists. A person who is supportive ofthe environment may not necessarily support or even be aware of environmental activists.

7. This study does not focus on specific environmental issues and policies (like air and waterquality, wildlife, or hazardous waste siting), but examines environment as a broad category.

8. Bivariate correlations were carried out among the independent variables (see Table2). Among the statistically significant correlations, the highest was between party identifica-tion and political ideology, which was .5.

9. As Somma and Tolleson-Rinehart argue, some women, as well as men, may exhibitelements of feminism and gender consciousness on an individual level, although they maynot be willing to identify themselves as feminists or be in favor of the feminist movement(1997). Hence, this study used the women’s rights scale as an indicator of feminist con-sciousness.

10. Three interaction terms, one between gender and race, another between gender andpolitical ideology, and the third between gender and party identification, were added to theregression equation to see the interaction effects between these variables. However, none ofthese terms were statistically significant [gender x race =�.142 (.209), gender x political ide-ology = �.071 (.086) and gender x party identification = 0.052 (.075), showing that therewere no interaction effects between gender and race, gender and political ideology, and gen-der and party identification.

11. The cross-sectional nature of this data makes it difficult to separate out other effectsfrom cohort effects. As Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano argue, “the effects of age and cohort areconceptually distinct but cannot be disentangled in a single cross-sectional study” (1998,452). One needs to study cohorts over time to ascertain the effects of post-materialism. Tosee the effects of aging in a different context, see M. Kent Jennings (1988).

REFERENCES

Abramson, Paul, and Ronald Inglehart. 1994. “Education, Security, and Postmater-ialism: A Comment on Dutch and Taylor’s ‘Postmaterialism and the EconomicCondition.’” American Journal of Political Science 38:797-814.

Agarwal, Bina. 1992. “The Gender and Environment Debate.” Feminist Studies 18:119-158.

Biehl, Jane. 1991. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. Boston: South End.

Manjusha Gupte 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Blocker, Jean, and Douglas Eckberg. 1989. “Environmental Issues as Women’s Issues:General Concern and Local Hazards.” Social Science Quarterly 70:586-593.

Blocker, Jean, and Douglas Eckberg. 1997. “Gender and Environmentalism: Resultsfrom the 1993 General Social Survey.” Social Science Quarterly 78:841-858.

Bord, Richard, and Robert O’Connor. 1997. “The Gender Gap in Environmental Atti-tudes: The Case of Perceived Vulnerability to Risk.” Social Science Quarterly 78:830-839.

Braidotti, Rosi et al. 1994. Women, the Environment, and Sustainable Development:Towards a Theoretical Synthesis. London: Zed Books.

Brown, Richard, Christopher Williams, and Paul Lees-Haley. 1993. “The Effect ofHindsight Bias on Fear of Future Illness.” Environment and Behavior 25:577-585.

Bullard, Robert. 1993. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grass-roots. Boston: South End.

Buttel, Frederick. 1979. “Age and Environmental Concern: A Multivariate Analysis.”Youth and Society 10:237-256.

Buttel, Frederick. 1987. “New Directions in Environmental Sociology.” Annual Re-view of Sociology 13:465-488.

Buttel, Frederick, and W. Flinn. 1974. “The Structure of Support for the Environmen-tal Movement, 1968-1970.” Rural Sociology 39:56-69.

Buttel, Frederick, and W. Flinn. 1978. “The Politics of Environmental Concern: TheImpacts of Party Identification and Political Ideology on Environmental Attitudes.”Environment and Behavior 10:17-36.

Carroll, G. 1991. “When Collusion Hits Home.” National Wildlife 22:30-39.Chodorow, Nancy. 1974. “Family Structure and Feminine Personality.” In Women,

Culture and Society, eds. Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Lousie Lamphere. Stan-ford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Conover, Pamela Johnson, and Virginia Sapiro. 1993. “Gender, Feminist Conscious-ness, and War.” American Journal of Political Science 37:1079-1099.

Cook, Elizabeth Adell. 1989. “Measuring Feminist Consciousness.” Women & Poli-tics 9(3): 71-88.

Davidson, Debra, and William Freudenberg. 1996. “Gender and Environmental RiskConcerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research.” Environment and Be-havior 28:302-339.

Diamond, Irene, and Gloria Orenstein. 1990. Reweaving the World: The Emergence ofEcofeminism. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Dietz, Thomas, Paul Stern, and Gregory Guagano. 1998. “Social Structural and SocialPsychological Bases of Environmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior 30:450-471.

Dryzek, John. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.

Eckersley, Robyn. 1992. Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an EcocentricApproach. Albany: SUNY Press.

Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s De-velopment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

60 WOMEN & POLITICS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Gregory, Robin, Thomas Brown, and Jack Knetsch. 1996. “Valuing Risks to the Envi-ronment.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 545:54-63.

Griffin, Susan. 1978. Women and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her. New York: Harper &Row.

Guha, Ramchandra. 1989. The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Re-sistance in the Himalaya. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Hamilton, James. 1995. “Testing for Environmentalism Racism: Prejudice, Profits andPolitical Power?” Journal of Political Analysis and Man 14: 107-132.

Hamilton, Lawrence. 1985. “Who Cares About Water Pollution? Opinions in a Small-Town Crisis.” Sociological Inquiry 55:170-181.

Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic,and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jackson, Cecile. 1993a. “Doing What Comes Naturally? Women and Environment inDevelopment.” World Development 21:1947-1963.

Jackson, Cecile. 1993b. “Women/Nature or Gender/History? A Critique of Ecofeminist‘Development.’” Journal of Peasant Studies 20:389-419.

Jain, Shobita. 1984. “Women and People’s Ecology Movement: A Case Study ofWomen’s Role in the Chipko Movement in Uttar Pradesh.” Economic and PoliticalWeekly 13:1789-94.

Jennings, M. Kent. 1988. “Political Involvement in the Later Years: A LongitudinalSurvey.” American Journal of Political Science 32:302-316.

Jones, Robert, and Riley Dunlap. 1992. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern:Have They Changed Over Time?” Rural Sociology 57:28-47.

Kanagy, Conrad, Craig Humphrey, and Glenn Firebaugh. 1994. “Surging Environ-mentalism: Changing Public Opinion or Changing Publics?” Social Science Quar-terly 75:804-819.

Klein, Ethel. 1984. Gender Politics: From Consciousness to Mass Politics. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kurian, Priya. 2000. Engendering the Environment? Gender in the World Bank’s Envi-ronmental Policies. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Malkis, A., and H.G. Grasmick. 1977. “Support for the Ideology of the EnvironmentalMovement: Tests of Alternative Hypotheses.” Western Sociological Review 8:25-47.

Merchant, Carolyn. 1979. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the ScientificRevolution. New York: Harper & Row.

Mies, Maria. 1986. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the In-ternational Division of Labor. London: Zed Books.

Mohai, Paul, and Ben Twight. 1987. “Age and Environmentalism: An Elaboration ofthe Buttel Model Using National Survey Evidence.” Social Science Quarterly:798-819.

Reingold, Beth, and Heather Foust. 1998. “Exploring the Determinants of FeministConsciousness in the United States. Women & Politics 19(3): 19-48.

Rich, Adrienne, 1976. Of Woman Born, Motherhood as Experience and Institution.New York: W.W. Norton.

Sarin, Madhu. 1997. Joint Forest Management: The Haryana Experience. Ahmedabad:Centre for Environment and Education.

Manjusha Gupte 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Schahn, Joachim, and Erwin Holzer. 1990. “Studies of Individual Environmental Con-cern: The Role of Knowledge, Gender and Background Variables.” Environmentand Behavior 22:767-786.

Scott, David, and Fern Willits. 1994. “Environmental Attitudes and Behavior: A Penn-sylvania Survey.” Environment and Behavior 26:239-260.

Shapiro, Robert, and Harpreet Mahajan. 1986. “Gender Differences in Policy Prefer-ences: A Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s.” Public Opinion Quar-terly 50:42-61.

Shiva, Vandana. 1989. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London:Zed Books.

Somma, Mark, and Sue Tolleson-Rinehart. 1997. “Tracking the Elusive Green Women:Sex, Environmentalism, and Feminism in the United States and Europe.” PoliticalResearch Quarterly 50:153-169.

Stern, Paul, Thomas Dietz, and Linda Kalof. 1993. “Value Orientations, Gender andEnvironmental Concern.” Environment and Behavior 25:322-348.

Sturgeon, Noël. 1997. Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory, and Po-litical Action. New York: Routledge.

Van Liere, Kent, and Riley Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Con-cern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” PublicOpinion Quarterly 44:181-197.

62 WOMEN & POLITICS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 1

4:43

02

Dec

embe

r 20

14