|
COPYRIGHT 2002 Journal of Business Administration
INTRODUCTION
The intention of those who defend old growth or denounce overgrazing is not to denounce hard physical work, but that is, in effect, what the articles [in High Country News] do. There are few articles or letters denouncing university professors or computer programmers or accountants or lawyers for sullying the environment, although it is my guess that a single lawyer or accountant [dare he say academic] could, on a good day, put the efforts of Paul Bunyan to shame (White 1995: 185).
... "I turned around and I looked at them, I said, "as we drove through her clear cut, and you walked over her wooden fence, and went into her wooden house, sat on her wooden furniture, looked at her wooden pictures, and we walked outside and sit on the wooden furniture, while they cooked your dinner with wood, "I said, "I want that deal and so does everybody on this planet. How do you propose to get it? That's my question to you." They go, "oh that's not a very fair question", and I said "well, I'm sorry, but I know I have to work for it" ".... Everyone knows what [environmentalists] are trying to do ... ok if you did that, what are you going to wipe your butts with tomorrow?" (forestry town woman living on Vancouver Island 1998).
The challenge posed by Richard White, noted in the first quotation of the epitaph above, remains part of the dilemma of sustaining forestry communities on Canada's West Coast. White (1995) wrote of the need for environmentalism to come to grips with workers who labour in nature, pointing out that white collar workers are as likely, if indirectly, to tear down trees by their labours as their working-class counterparts. A close reading reveals his continuity of concern for workers and for the implications of a romanticized (if racialized and gendered) form of nature in which humans have little part, save through archaic forms of labour. This is now a familiar argument. However, I also draw attention to his situation in society. White writes with empathy and elegance. His work has reached national and international audiences because of his position as a prominent academic, and his ability to hone his craft--the written word--through years of practice. His prose, but not his sentiment, is in marked contrast to the story related by an interviewee in my study area on Vancouver Island, Canada. While she raises similar issues related to labour and environmentalists' hypocrisy, her description is bald, bitter, and downright bawdy. It is in this context, that I wondered how I, a self-described feminist environmental geographer, could use sympathy and skepticism to accurately and sensitively interpret the strong anti-environmental sentiments expressed by forestry-town women living on Canada's West Coast?
The research reported here focuses on how women living in forestry communities on northern Vancouver Island, Canada framed forestry and land use issues as they confronted the restructuring of the forest industry and government policy. I am particularly concerned with women who support industrial forestry. Women of my study group formed part of forestry organizations, they (wo)manned information booths, organized rallies, undertook letter writing campaigns, led forestry tours, and hosted so-called educational events. Some of them even attended the "ecofeminist peace camp" in Clayoquot Sound in 1993 (1). All these actions were taken to show their solidarity with forestry workers and the forest industry at large and to defy the campaigns of environmental organisations aimed at reducing clear cut logging in the temperate rainforests of the West coast.
In this paper, I develop the concept of "social marginalisation" to explain the sentiments of forestry-town women in forestry and land use debates. While social marginalisation is not exclusive to women's experience, I have applied this concept here to gain understanding of the perspectives and activism of forestry-town women in nature protection debates. (2) I begin the paper by describing the research context and methods, followed by my theorization of social marginalisation. I illustrate its specific application to forestry-town women of the Canadian Pacific Northwest by focusing on two facets: powerlessness and moral exclusion. I conclude by suggesting that processes and actions associated with social marginalisation result in a complex interplay that is not well described by simple binaries of progressive and regressive politics.
When I speak of a forestry community, I refer to a multi-layered concept that embraces geographic territory, community of interest, and community of attachment (after Crowe and Allan 1994). My definition deliberately melds interests and attachments to one another and to the non-human environment in particular geographical places. When I refer solely to a territorial definition of forestry communities, I use the more restricted term, "forestry towns".
THE RESEARCH CONTEXT AND METHODS
My research took place on northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia (BC) between 1996 and 1999. At this time, changes were occurring in the structure of the industry, in policy regimes that governed land allocation and management, in provisions for social welfare, and in relationships with Aboriginal First Nations. (3) Problems of forest management were related to the transition from old-growth to second growth timber, (4) historic over-cutting, inadequate replanting and silviculture, changes in harvesting and processing technology, land tenure, international market circumstances, corporate restructuring, and a failure to resolve the land question with Aboriginal First Nations. (5) Longstanding, international environmental campaigns against logging in the coastal rainforests that had developed over 20 years finally required government action in order to protect forest resources and non-timber values.
In 1991, social democrats represented by the New Democratic Party (NDP), were elected and given an overwhelming mandate to "do good" on a number of environmental promises. Yet the power base of the NDP was historically built on its support of organized labour. Thus, it faced two historically-opposing constituencies--resource workers and environmentalists. In addition, through hard-won legal battles and negotiated agreements, the rights and interests of Aboriginal First Nations in BC were of growing importance as were the uncertainties associated with their recognition and resolution. In an effort to balance these demands, the NDP introduced several new acts or policy initiatives affecting Crown land allocation and management practices, and created new programs to assist displaced forestry workers (Price Waterhouse 1995; Prudham and Reed 2001; Reed 1999). Timber available for harvesting declined, costs for land management increased, and worker transition programmes flopped. In response, forestry families, workers, and companies remained largely united against government and environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) to retain their hold on remaining stands (Clapp 1998). (6)
In addition to these land use changes, the withdrawal of the state from public sector and social investment during the 1980s and 1990s also hit rural communities (see Prince 1996; Evans and Werkerle 1997; Reed 2003b). For forestry sector workers, increased length of "seasonal" company shutdowns, prolonged strikes, and outright mill closures meant that more workers and their families relied on employment insurance and other social services that were severely curtailed or eliminated altogether. Thus, while some public policy makers began to allocate harvestable forested lands to wilderness or protected areas, others worked to reduce provisions for social well-being. Rural residents--especially those living in forestry towns--believed that their livelihoods and social safety nets were simultaneously being torn away from them. Environmental activists lobbied hard to protect forests from industrial exploitation. They did not, however, stand up when provisions for social welfare were dramatically withdrawn (for discussion, see Reed 1999; 2003b).
To gain an understanding of women's perspectives in these debates, I undertook an interactive applied research strategy, following principles of feminist participatory, qualitative, and case-study methodologies outlined by Shulamit Reinharz (1992), Linda McDowell (1993a, 1993b) and Julie-Katherine Gibson-Graham (1994). (7) I met with women living in nine forestry communities on northern Vancouver Island (Figure 1) where, according to one government study, 51 percent of employment income came from forestry occupations in 1996 (Home 1999). (8) Initially, 32 in-depth interviews were conducted by myself and my research assistants with women who had varying connections to forestry. From this group of local residents, 10 women were selected to be community researchers in order to discuss local issues and to be trained to conduct in-depth interviews. In total, 50 interviews and three focus groups were completed for analysis. (9)
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
THEORIZING SOCIAL MARGINALIZATION
Since WWII, Canadian forestry workers have been represented by strong unions and have enjoyed high wages, good benefits and access to a social safety net that includes employment insurance, universal medicare, and publicly-supported old-age pensions. (10) In BC, male forestry workers in the industry and their families are rarely poor. On the contrary, average incomes have historically outstripped those for the general population. Why then, should these people be considered marginal?
Social Marginalization as a Relational Concept
While residents of post-WWII BC enjoyed high wages and living standards, at least four qualifications must be attached to this observation. First, I suggest that the overall economic well-being of forestry communities is of recent significance. Prior to this time, forestry workers were exposed to a high level of occupational hazards, low or non-existent pensions, and a lifestyle that often led to retirement in the tenement apartment buildings or on the streets of Vancouver's poorest neighbourhood (Davis and Hutton 1989).
Second, the economic benefits of the resource economy have not been evenly shared across regional or even local landscapes. The effects of structural changes in the industry and/or government policy have had and will continue to have differential effects for communities and workers. For example, Clark Binkley (1997) estimated that policies introduced in the early 1990s would result in a 20-year reduction of about 23.5 percent in provincial total harvest levels, with greater impacts on the Coast than the Interior. Furthermore, he estimated that this reduction would result in the loss of up to 92,000 jobs, 4.9 billion dollars in provincial GDP, substantial losses in government revenues, and increased costs for social services for unemployed workers. While some of these losses would be realized in Vancouver, the impacts would be most strongly felt in 39 of 55 rural communities in BC where the forest sector is the...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
