Female and male teachers’ pro-environmental behaviour, conceptions and attitudes towards nature and the environment do not differ: Ecofeminism put to the test

Background to the study

There have been claims that women show greater concern and responsibility for nature and the environment than men (Besthorn & Pearson McMillen, 2002; d’Eaubonne, 1974; Loots, 2011; Shiva, 1988). This is one of the cornerstones of ecofeminism, a discourse that combines feminist theory and biology (Zell, 1998). If this claim was verified scientifically, it might have an impact on environmental education in schools, in the sense that female teachers would be expected to put more effort into education about environmental dimension of sustainable development, compared to male teachers. Our study should be seen as an attempt to verify or refute this claim.

We had the opportunity to use the questionnaire developed within the European research project BIOHEAD-Citizen (Biology, Health and Environmental Education for Better Citizenship; Carvalho, Clément, Bogner & Caravita, 2008), where one of the topics was pre- and in-service teachers’ pro-environmental behaviour, conceptions and attitudes towards nature and the environment. With a sample of teachers from Sweden and France, it was possible to empirically investigate the claim that women show greater concern and responsibility for nature and the environment, compared to men. Thus, we used the questionnaire and selected questions, which could test pro-environmental behaviour, conceptions and attitudes towards nature and the environment, and analysed these with respect to different perspectives of ecofeminism.

Environmental awareness

The concept ‘sustainable development’ became well-known to the public through the work of the Brundtland Commission in 1987 (United Nations, 1987). The Commissions’ definition of sustainable development was: ‘development which meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. The three dimensions of sustainable development – the economic, social and environmental – should support each other. At United Nations meeting, World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg 2002, the concept of sustainable development was recognised as superior principle for the work of the United Nations (United Nations, 2002). Teachers are vital in this process and supposed to promote students in their concern about environmental issues. UNESCO declared 2005 – 2014 as the ‘Decade of Education for Sustainable Development’ (UNESCO, 2005).

Conceptions that teachers have of nature and the environment have been the object of only a few studies. The gender perspective was investigated by Oerke and Bogner (2010), who studied 367 German pre- and in-service teachers’ environmental attitudes within the BIOHEAD-Citizen Project (Carvalho et al., 2008). The authors used Two Major Environmental Models (2-MEV Model) of Bogner and Wiseman (2006), and identified two independent dimensions ‘Preservation’ (P) and ‘Utilization’ (U), reflecting ecocentric and anthropocentric concerns, respectively. Preservation characterises enjoyment and protection of nature, while U emphasises human rights to control and utilise nature. As the model permits high scores on both dimensions, it implies that there are no general conflicts between protection and utilisation of nature. The authors reported results from grouping pre- and in-service teachers according to gender, age, educational level and subject. Some significant differences appeared. Concerning gender, scores for U were significantly higher for men, than for women. There was an increase in scores for both P and U with increasing age for both genders. With increasing age, there was significance for U for the group as a whole, while an increase for P was seen only for women. A characteristic result was that women in the oldest cohort showed significantly high scores for P.

Munoz, Bogner, Clément and Carvalho (2009) presented results from environmental attitudes of approximately 6,400 pre- and in-service teachers from 16 countries. However, no gender perspective was reported. The authors used the 2-MEV model of Bogner and Wiseman (2006). One of their main findings was that there was significant inter-country variation related to the U dimension. Munoz and colleagues (2009) suggested that teachers from less developed countries might be more anthropocentric and more focused on using natural resources.

Zelezny, Chua and Aldrich (2000) described an investigation where environmental attitudes and behaviours of almost 2,160 students from 14 countries were analysed. The study was performed among English- or Spanish-speaking undergraduate students from Europe, Latin America, and the United States, who were participating in social or behavioural courses. They used the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) theoretical framework (Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000) and found that women had significantly stronger New Environmental Paradigm (NEW) scores than men. Women also showed stronger ecocentric environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviour than men. The same authors also presented an overview of gender and environmental attitudes and behaviours from 1988 to 1998, which showed that women displayed more general concerns about the environment than men and also demonstrated greater participation in pro-environmental behaviour (Zelezny et al., 2000).

The above studies show differences in attitudes and behaviour about nature and environmental concern between women and men, although in different degrees. A common way to explain these gender differences is by means of socialisation theory (Eagly, 1987). According to this theory, women are socialised by gender expectations to become nurturing, cooperative and to be helpful in caregiving roles, while men are socialised to be competitive and independent. Within the feminist framework, the social movement and theoretical discourse ecofeminism gives women special connection to nature. This connection generates assumption that women have positive attitudes towards the environment and environmental conservation (Jackson, 1993). Women are more aware of environmental issues than men because of their natural closeness to nature (Mies & Shiva, 1993; Shiva, 1988). This assumption has been challenged by Momsen (2000), who argues that women’s claim to be more concerned with the environment has not been verified by empirical studies. Our study aims to empirically explore if there is any support to the hypothesis that women are more aware of nature and the environment in view of their alleged natural closeness to nature. This could have consequences for environmental education in schools.

Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism could be regarded as both social movement and theoretical discourse (Kronlid, 2003). The social movement was followed by theoretical discourse at Western universities in the 1970s. The concept ‘ecofeminism’ was coined by Francoise d’Eaubonne, French writer and feminist, in 1974 in the book Feminism or Death (d’Eaubonne, 1974). In this book, she called on all women to lead an ecological revolution to save the planet earth, a revolution that also would give women equal opportunities. The ecofeminist discourse has then changed into being heterogeneous in nature (Warren, 1996). It has been developed by researchers such as the Indian ecofeminist Vandana Shiva (Salleh, 2009) and by the American ecofeminists Ynestra King, Carolyn Merchant and Karen Warren (Kronlid, 2003).

Ecofeminism is defined as a discourse that draws on feminist theory and biology, particularly ecology (Zell, 1998), although primarily on feminist discourse (Li, 2007). The Swedish National Encyclopaedia defines ecofeminism as ‘collective denomination of those feminist groups which regard environment as central’ (authors’ translation; The Swedish National Encyclopaedia, 2014). According to Warren (1994), ecofeminism could be regarded as an umbrella term for different views on the parallel oppression of women and nature. Ynestra King states that ‘ecofeminism is about connectedness and wholeness of theory and practice – it sees the devastation of mother earth and human beings by the corporate warriors of feminist concern’ (Kamble, 2012, p. 1). Kamble (2012) also talks about difficulties of defining ecofeminism, as it is influenced by different feminisms.

Ecofeminism accentuates that theory and practice are related internally (Buckingham, 2004; Kronlid, 2003; Mallory, 2006). This means that theoretical positions have great impact on practice and that theoretical standpoints ought to be developed in close relationship to different practices. These theoretical standpoints are not only discussed in terms of a general theory, but also in view of a personal, moral responsibility (Kronlid, 2003). This could be manifested in personal attitudes towards nature in practice, and is perhaps best understood by its personalised interpreter, such as Ynestra King, Carolyn Merchant and Karen Warren (Braidotti, Charkiewicz, Häusler, & Wieringa, 2004).

In his thesis, Kronlid (2003) describes ecofeminism from the perspective of environmental ethics, and ascribes the theoretical basis and the academic discourse of ecofeminism theory to that part of ecophilosophy, which combines environmental issues and gender issues. Kronlid argues that ecofeminism is a complex theory, not sufficiently precise, and hence a vague theory. In the 1990s, the academic discourse ecofeminism remained specialised and marginalised in the fields of women’s and environmental studies (Gaard, 1994). In recent years, ecofeminism has put greater effort into ethical and political issues (Li, 2007). Gaard (2010) advocates that in the future ecofeminism will explore the intersections of ecofeminism and the queer theory, ecofeminism and bioregionalism, and ecofeminism and vegetarian and vegan feminist threads.

Some central themes in ecofeminism will be described below. Common to all ecofeminism forms and variants is the assumption that there is a connection between oppression of women and nature (Braidotti et al., 2004; Goldstein, 2006; Kronlid, 2003; Leach, 2007; Mallory, 2006). This is the theme of double oppression, which means that oppression of women is related to non-sustainable exploitation of nature. The grounds for this oppression are the patriarchal society and the power of men (Braidotti et al., 2004; Warren, 2000). The idea of a connection between women and nature can be traced back to pre-industrial periods (Merchant, 1990). The author’s view is that nature was idealised as a life-giving mother, and was considered to be ‘organic’, that is, to be an organism. Women were regarded as being more associated with nature, compared to men because of their birth-giving roles, breast-feeding and child raising. Later on, the view of nature was changed into a more mechanistic one. Nature was considered to be source of resources that could be exploited and something mankind could rule. As women were connected to nature, they were also looked upon as someone that could be ruled (Merchant, 1990). However, there are contemporary ecofeminists, who have taken steps away from this double oppression perspective (Li, 2007). These feminists are more engaged in questions about interrelated ecological, economic and social problems.

Ecofeminism takes an ecocentric or non-anthropocentric view (Braidotti et al., 2004; Kronlid, 2003). There is concern for organisms other than humans, and other organisms have values of their own beyond their potential utility for humans (Loots, 2011; Thompson & Barton, 1994). From this follows that nature ought to be respected. Jackson (1993) writes: ‘First, for ecofeminists, life is an interconnected web not a hierarchy. Thus, human life has no greater value than non-human life and forms of nature are not of differential value’ (p. 397).

Women’s allegedly closer relationship with nature, compared to men’s is also discussed in terms of knowledge of nature (Croeser, 2011; Leach, 2007). In traditional societies and former peasant cultures, women have long been regarded as having more knowledge of nature and its different organisms, compared to men (Rocheleau, Thomas-Slayter, & Wangari, 1996). From the ecofeminism perspective, this gives women a special connection to nature, which in turn leads to the assumption that women have positive attitudes towards the environment and environmental conservation (Jackson, 1993). Their natural closeness to nature makes women more aware of environmental issues than men (Besthorn & Pearson McMillen, 2002). From childhood, women are socialised to be family nurturers and caregivers, and this gives expectations that women should be more concerned with environmental issues (Leach, 2007; Mohai, 1992).

Western natural science is challenged by ecofeminism (Braidotti et al., 2004; Salleh, 2006). Western science highlights its crucial role for the production of science and invalidates all other forms of science (Kumar D’Souza, 1989). In this way, Western science has total control over the truth of reality, and no other forms of knowledge are accepted. The production of science in Western society is closely linked to power institutions, and this is problematic (Foucault, 1980). This Western society framework has been challenged in the ecofeminist debate, where another epistemological framework has been proposed (Kumar D’Souza, 1989). In this new framework, those who are excluded from the dominant scientific patriarchal science system will be included in science and knowledge production. This framework should respect plurality, different cultures and traditions, and especially emphasise the so-called south-north perspective.

Aim of the study

This brief description of ecofeminism points to its characteristics. Ecofeminist principles could be expressed as women’s special connection to nature, women’s positive conceptions and attitudes towards nature, thus, implicating women’s higher awareness of environmental issues than men and a personal moral responsibility followed by responsible practice. If these statements are empirically true, it might have an impact on environmental education in schools, in the sense that female teachers would be expected to put more effort into education about environmental dimension of sustainable development, compared to male teachers.

The aim of this study is to investigate if women’s allegedly greater concern and responsibility for nature and the environment compared to men’s could be verified in a group of 1,109 Swedish and French pre- and in-service teachers. Moreover, if there are any differences, we will investigate if these can be explained from an ecofeminist perspective.

Research questions

Are there any differences between female and male pre- and in-service teachers’ conceptions and attitudes towards nature and the environment, which could lead to different pro-environmental behaviour? If there are differences, how can these be described?
To what extent can differences, if any, be explained from an ecofeminist perspective?