Around the globe, humanity is mistreating Earth. While contested, there is compelling evidence that anthropogenic pressures on Earth's living systems are now so high that there is popular concern about the consequences of a 2oC global temperature increase and a sixth mass extinction of species, which are two telling justifications of an emerging 'Anthropocene' .
The economic, social and political benefits of industrialisation come at a terrible cost to both women and men and indeed to all of life on Earth, however it is modern Western masculinities and men who are the main beneficiaries of industrialisation and also the primary proponents of this destructive behaviour.The book highlights these costs in order to bring home to modern Western men and masculinities the importance of shifting away from industrial masculinities and, beyond the reformist tendencies of ecomodern masculinities, towards deeper, greener, pluralised and ecologised masculinities. If we are to achieve a green future, then we must particularly encourage men and modern Western masculinities to reawaken capacities to care and be caring towards all non-humans, other humans and self alike.
Based on both quantative and qualitative research, Ecological Masculinities proposes paths towards new theories of masculinity which promote a greener and sustainable future. This book will be of great interest to students and researchers in Gender Studies, Ecophilosophy and Sustainability Studies.
First I was delighted by the subject-matter of this book and then by the careful and scrupulous way the writers treat the subject.
The first seven chapters (out of eight) read like a long preparation, though. Long but solid; solid but long. Out of 246 pages, the real presentation (of changing masculinities) starts at page 231!
It is obvious the writer-duo pleads for something very necessary and urgent: an alternative to the dominant/prominent existing masculinities that happen to be harmful for the environment. Not only for the environment, but also for women. And not only for nature and women but for men themselves. The alternative is what they call ecological masculinities.
Unfortunately, the suggestions/stimulations at the end of the book of what modification to ecological masculinities may look like, are rather disappointing. I believe the writers identified all kinds of useful ingredients for ecological masculinities in the first seven chapters: why were these not gathered as a proposal or indication in chapter eight?
I am very committed to the subject and I think Martin Hultman and Paul M. Pulé basically are doing a very good job. I hope they proceed with their efforts, along with others, and maybe we can expect a useful book in five years which focuses more on the cultivation of ecological masculinities, theoretically and practically.
I wonder: How can men immersed in existing (non-ecological) masculinities be motivated to change (toward ecological masculinities) while supposedly many of them do not feel intrinsically motivated to change? What kind of change of culture (personal and communal) is needed? How is this is change of culture best provoked and stimulated?
The central premise and message of this book - that all men and masculine folks have the capacity to care for other humans, more-than-humans, and the environment and should move away from toxic masculinities that have negated their ability to practice real care - I can get behind. However, this book drowns in complicated prose and technical language. I bristled at the terms "glocal" and "malestream" and had a hard time getting through it (took me over a year). Thus, the individuals that would most benefit from this book will likely never pick this up and abandon it quickly if they did. For instance, at the end they attempt to speak towards people who are stuck in situations where they are working for corporations that harm the environment, etc., but then suggest that these people undertake "dialectical midwifery." What? The book is also largely a literature review, which again, makes it and the good ideas hidden within inaccessible.
More succinctly, the book leans heavy towards the "theoretical foundations" part of the title.
I like what it is about and I like the point(s) that the book is trying to sell, but it could be written much more clearly. The structure seems weird and it can be hard to follow what a chapter is actually about. Could be a good book if it was only 50 pages long and left out many things!