By Auður H Ingólfsdóttir
The Arctic has often been presented as a pristine territory, waiting to be discovered. The travelogues of Arctic explorers created an image of a cold, dangerous and distant, yet mysterious region. Only the brave and heroic dared to travel there. The gendered aspect of discourses related to Arctic exploration in the 19th and early 20th century is obvious. Not only were all the explorers men, but the image of the explorer was one of a warrior whose goal was to conquer. In his recent book The Future History of the Arctic, Emmerson recalls a quote from a letter written by the famous Arctic explorer Fridjof Nansen to the journalist W.T. Stead: “True civilization will not have been reached until all nations see that it is nobler to conquer nature than to conquer each other”.
Whereas the image of the explorer is of the masculine hero, the Arctic as a region is feminized. The Arctic environment is pristine, untouched, almost virginal. It is to be conquered by the brave explorer, as demonstrated in Nansen’s quote.
Masculine values have also dominated in more recent times, when the Arctic became a playing field for superpowers to demonstrate their military might. After the Cold War, however, there has been greater emphasis on demilitarization of the region and cooperation among states.
But how does climate change and the melting of the Arctic ice cap influence this picture? Will these environmental changes threaten the peace and stability of the region, leading to a race for resources and a competition between and among states? Or will climate change provide added incentives for cooperation among states and other stakeholders?
The answers are not clear. Currently there are two competing discourses on climate change and security in the Arctic. One draws from the realist perspective in international relations, in which power politics between states dominates; the other can be linked to liberalism, emphasizing the mutual benefits of cooperation. Certain aspects of the second discourse, however, could also be identified with other, more radical approaches calling for a transformation of values and of the relationships between states and citizens and between humans and nature. This is where feminism becomes relevant. Are feminine values still pushed to the margins in the field of geopolitics? Or have they entered the stage as an accepted player, capable of making a useful contribution to the shaping and implementation of policy?
Masculinity and State Behaviour
Published in 1992, Ann Tickner’s book Gender in International Relations serves as a landmark in feminist writings in the field of international relations. Tickner points out that because foreign and military policy-making has largely been conducted by men, the discipline that analyses these activities is bound to be primarily about men and masculinity. “We seldom realize we think in these terms,” she writes, “…however; in most fields of knowledge we have become accustomed to equating what is human with what is masculine.”
Tickner traces how in realism, the dominant school of thought within international relations, the ideal of the glorified male warrior, has been projected onto the behaviour of states. Throughout history, characteristics associated with masculinity, such as toughness, courage, power, independence, and even physical strength, have been those most valued in international politics. This glorification of male warrior attributes celebrates only one type of masculinity, however, subordinating other types of masculinity.
According to Tickner, liberalism, the main competing theory of international relations to realism, is not free from the masculine values underpinning basic assumptions. While realists emphasize competition and power struggles, liberals are advocates of free trade and cooperation between states that will maximize benefits. To liberals, human beings are driven by rational self-interest. “The rational economic man” is posited in contrast to “the political man”. But perhaps the difference is not so great? Tickner argues that the rational economic man has many similarities to the political man, but his aggressive passions have been tamed by the rational pursuit of profit. Women are still absent from the picture, and feminine values related to caring, nurture and service, all of which are crucial for reproduction and the survival of the younger generation, are nowhere to be found.
Competition or Cooperation?
Climate changes are being experienced particularly intensely in the Arctic. For example, according to the Arctic Council Impact Assessment of 2004, average Arctic temperatures have increased at almost twice the rate of the rest of the world. The warming of the region is impacting ecosystems, threatening species and causing a wide range of human security challenges at the local level. However, media attention has been more focused on the national security issues related to the melting of the Arctic ice cap. The consequent opening up of new sea routes and easier access to natural resources, including oil and gas resources, is expected to lead to a “scramble for resources” in the region, according to several newspaper accounts in recent years, some stressing the danger that this resource race may lead to a violent conflict between states.
The stakes are high. According to a study by the US Geological Survey, about 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil may be found north of the Arctic Circle. While the rhetoric of state officials has been one of cooperation, tensions are lurking beneath the surface. There are indications of a military build-up in certain regions and although the Arctic strategies of the eight Arctic states (the USA, Canada, Russia and the five Nordic states) all stress the need for cooperation, the protection of sovereignty and the right to utilize resources is higher on the list of priorities.
It is clear, therefore, that a certain tension exists between the need to cooperate and the wish to protect one’s interests. When it comes to the rights of humans to exploit nature, however, dominant values seem to go unchallenged. Instead of seeing the melting of the ice as an incentive to take more radical action to mitigate climate change, the focus is on how to extract more fossil fuels, which is likely to further intensify problems associated with climate change.
 |
| Foto: Colourbox |
The short-term economic gains of individual states take priority over the long-term common benefits of mankind.
Part of the problem is a tendency for dualism in Western thought, whereby disjunctive pairs are seen as opposite, rather than complementary: reason/emotion, mind/body, human/nature and man/woman. Whatever is historically associated with emotion, body, nature and women is regarded as inferior to that which is associated with reason, mind, human (i.e. male) and men. Just as the domination of men over women has been accepted over the centuries, human domination over nature continues to be unquestioned. Thus, the solution to these problems would include a dismantling of the man-made rift created between humans and nature. But are there any signs of this happening in the Arctic context?
The Importance of Values
Although Arctic discourses have traditionally been coloured by some masculine themes, there is great potential for a counter discourse, celebrating feminine values as an important contribution to the achievement of peace, economic justice, and ecological sustainability. Voices coming from this direction have already made their impact. Female leaders from Arctic indigenous communities have been influential in the discourse about the future of the region, introducing new views of the relationship between humans and nature. Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist is but one example. Watt-Cloutier has worked on a range of social and environmental issues affecting the Inuit, including climate change. She has highlighted the need to bridge Western scientific rationalism and the Aboriginal worldview and suggested that traditional ecological knowledge and other aboriginal knowledge systems should assume a more prominent role in dealing with current issues such as climate change.
The Nordic countries belong to the Arctic Council, and they have been known to pay attention to gender equality and social justice. The five Nordic countries are usually highly ranked in the Gender Gap Index, published annually by the World Economic. These states have shown leadership at the global level in eliminating gender equality and should be more open than many other states to feminine views and to challenging the more dominant, masculine worldview.
Values and beliefs are important to our view of the world, and they can be an influential factor in the shaping and implementation of policy. In this light, exploring the values underlying discourses on climate change and security in the Arctic is an important step in our efforts to find innovative solutions to new security challenges associated with climate change. Feminist perspectives and values have great potential to enter the Arctic climate change stage as an accepted player, capable of influencing policy. By employing a feminist perspective, policy interventions can be better designed and more effectively targeted to address the real security needs of people at risk. This perspective gives hope for an international community that becomes more cooperative and increasingly capable of prioritizing long-term common benefits over short-term individual gains. And it holds promise for a reshaping of human interactions with nature, away from the form of domination to a form characterized by a spirit of partnership.
Auður H Ingólfsdóttir is Assistant Professor at Bifröst University, Iceland
