Space Invaders: Part 3

This is part three of a talk I gave before an International Women’s Day special screening of ‘Hidden Figures’ at the University of Leicester. For parts one and two of my talk, see the previous posts.

……Ann Oakley might not have helped put men on the moon, like the women did in our film this evening.

But as Oakley has herself reflected, the practical impact of scientific inquiry can occur by opening up a debate, by highlighting an issue that was not regarded as an issue before – in her case, by destabilising the masculine space that is the established understanding of what does and what does not count as work, and of what does and does not matter in the social world.

Continue reading Space Invaders: Part 3

Space Invaders: part 2 of a pre-screening talk for ‘Hidden Figures’

This is part two of a talk I gave before an International Women’s Day special screening of ‘Hidden Figures’ at the University of Leicester. For part one of my talk, see the previous post.

….Women who enter into occupations, organizations and institutions traditionally dominated by white men  – like Mary Anning, like Marie Curie, like the women in the film we are here to watch tonight – are ‘space invaders’: they are invading the masculine space, with all the attendant problems that invaders face – barriers, resistance, hostility and so on.

 

I didn’t grow up to be a physicist or a chemist like Marie Curie or a palaeontologist like Mary Anning – I grew up to be a sociologist instead. But I like to think that the curiosity I have about how the SOCIAL world works was inspired by the scientific curiosity about how the NATURAL world works shown by my role models, Marie Curie and Mary Anning.

As an A level sociology student aged 17 or so, I had a new role model – Ann Oakley, a rare woman sociologist included on the A level curriculum in the 1980s, and so a Space Invader herself, and now a Professor at University College London.

Earlier today, in fact, I gave a lecture to our 2nd year sociology students about Ann Oakley and her experiences as a pioneer woman sociologist in the UK in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

She was a Space Invader because in the UK at the time, only 13% of postgraduate degrees were awarded to women. She was a Space Invader because she undertook her post grad degree having already married and having had children. She was a Space Invader because of her topic of study – housework, which she argued, should be studied as WORK.

When Ann Oakley identified this topic of housework as WORK as the subject of her PhD, she was basically ridiculed and laughed at by the mostly male academics – it was not seen as a topic worthy of serious, academic study.

Anne Oakley has had the last laugh though, because her study of housework as work is now recognised by the Economic and Social Research Council as one of the most significant pieces of social research in the UK in the last 50 years. Oakley’s achievement was to have taken something widely regarded as insignificant, as a woman’s thing, so as unimportant, and to show that it is something worth examining and explaining…..

(part 3 to follow)

Hidden Figures: pre-screening talk for International Women’s Day 2017 (part one)

Hidden Figures is a film highlighting the important role played in the 1960s (and subsequently) by African American women mathematicians in NASA’s mission to put human beings in space. In celebration of International Women’s Day 2017, the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Leicester put on a special showing of the film preceded by two short talks. One of the speakers was Professor of Planetary Plasma Physics, Emma Bunce, who spoke about her work in astronomy. I was the other speaker, tasked with addressing the theme of gender equality. Here is the first part of my talk, which I entitled ‘Space Invaders’. In subsequent posts, I will include the rest of the talk.

Space Invaders

The theme of my talk is gender equality, and along the way, I will be mentioning Marie Curie, Space Invaders and Donald Trump. Now, I think it’s safe to say that these three have never featured together in talk before, that this is a world first – perhaps there is a good reason for that, but let’s see how it goes!

Early in 2017, a study was published which showed that from the age of 6 or 7, girls begin to believe that intellectual smartness, genius and brilliance are qualities that boys and men have rather than girls and women.

We need women role models like the ones depicted in the film we are all here to watch this evening to counteract this kind of gender stereotyping which narrows down the world views of girls. For studies show that role models matter – social research shows that girls and women both rely on and benefit from same-gender role models, more so than boys and men do. When girls and women see other girls and women doing stuff that is non-traditional for their gender, this exposure breaks down their own gender stereotypes and gives girls and women more confidence in their skills and aspirations.

When I was a child, I had two role models that inspired me – they showed me how women can have a scientific curiosity about the natural world, and make a difference to our knowledge about it. Mary Anning, the early 19th C. fossil collector from Dorset, was one of my role models. I too collected fossils as a girl – I still have them actually, in a suit case in my loft – and here she was, a girl like me, doing the very same thing ages and ages ago.

My second role model as a child was Marie Curie, the Polish-French Nobel Prize winning physicist and chemist, famous for her work on radioactivity and radium. I vividly remember devouring, over and over again, the Ladybook book on ‘Madame Curie’, and being fascinated by her achievements – and even more intrigued by the fact that she did all that and she had been MARRIED, and she was a MOTHER!

Although I probably couldn’t have articulated it then, it mattered to me that both Mary Anning and Marie Curie were women and were successful in activities that were otherwise dominated by men.

And this is where Space Invaders come into my talk. Not Space Invaders the video game that some of you in the audience might remember. But Space Invaders in the sense of women working in occupations and activities that are otherwise dominated by men. Space Invaders in this sense is a concept developed by a former Leicester colleague, the sociologist Nirmal Puwar, now at Goldsmiths in London. It describes the experiences of women who enter into occupations, organizations and institutions traditionally dominated by white men.

(part two to follow….)

‘Synths’, ‘Robots’, ‘Cyborgs’? Rethinking similarities and differences in social relations

Have you been watching ‘Humans’, the British science fiction television series about a society (in the not too far distant future) where much of the work is done by ‘synths’ (human-like advanced robots)? You might have also seen the (2004) movie ‘I, Robot’ starring Will Smith, and more recently, the movie, ‘Ex Machina’ (2015), starring Alicia Vikander. All focus on the troubling question of what makes a human in the context of technological developments which obscure boundaries between ‘natural’ beings and ‘technological’ beings –  and especially, in ‘Humans’ and ‘Ex Machina’, the story-lines have interesting things to say about gender.

In the social sciences, it’s the concept of ‘the cyborg’ that has been used to analyse the ways that advanced technologies blur boundaries between, on the one hand, ‘natural’ human bodies and, on the other, ‘artificial’, ‘automated’ and ‘digital’ human bodies. It’s a concept especially associated with Donna Haraway, a US professor whose work has focused on science, technology and feminism. In her original formulation, Haraway defined cyborgs as ‘hybrid creatures’, composed of those ‘special kinds’ of organisms and machines appropriate to the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (Haraway 1991). More recently, Haraway (2012) has argued that, rather than hybrids, cyborgs are best understood as ‘string figures’. In Haraway’s words, cyborgs are ‘things’ or ‘relatings’ that are ‘ontologically heterogeneous, historically situated, materially rich, virally proliferating’ and which are ‘constitutively full of multiscalar, multitemporal, multimaterial critters of both living and non-living persuasions’ (2012: 301).  As Lupton (2013) explains, this shift in Haraway’s understanding from cyborg as ‘hybrids’ to cyborg as ‘string figures’ is intended to emphasise the multiplicity and intricate complexities of the intertwinings, patternings and assemblages of technoscience, human bodies and animal bodies. Haraway’s argument is that concepts of cyborg/string figures hold promise as a way of re-thinking similarities and differences in social relations.

In gender studies, the concept of the cyborg – whether understood as a hybrid or as a string figure – has influenced analyses of relationships between nature, bodies and culture, and the theorising of identity and ‘difference’. For example, Fouché (2012) explores how the concept of the cyborg can be used to intervene in and reconceptualise commonly understood notions of gender, bodies, and identity in the world of sport. Fouché focuses on the case of Caster Semanya, an athlete whose exceptional performances in women’s track events lead to her being subjected to ‘gender verification’, via technoscience testing. In Fouché’s analysis, Semanya’s experiences show that sporting organizations have yet to develop a scientific understanding that bodies do not simply conform to the binary of female and male. Fouché concludes that embracing the cyborg in athletes has the potential to resolve deep-seated social tensions within sport around bodies and performance. ‘Specifically, the cyborg understanding of athletes can be leveraged to reconstruct competitions that are no longer based on sex or gender’ (2012: 289).

Park (2012) draws on Haraway’s cyborg concept in an examination of connections between digital communication technologies and motherhood. She argues that these technologies are integral to the practice of mothering in ways that ‘transform the maternal body, its location in time and space, and its engagement with others, making possible resistant forms of maternal agency’ (2012: 61). What Park calls ‘technologies of co-presence’ (including cell phones, email, social media and video calls) allow mothers to inhabit time and space differently, and so enable ‘presence’ with their children ‘at a distance’. Park concludes that ‘Cyborg mothering is thus a practice that enables us to resist self-sacrificing ideals of motherhood’ (2012: 71).

In Haraway’s original formulation, the cyborg was a mythical hybrid, regarded optimistically as a symbol for the development of analytical as well as practical political strategies for diminishing social relations of domination. As Lupton (2013) summarises, critics of Haraway’s approach have challenged the notion of cyborgs as disruptive and transgressive. The ‘forces of cyborgification’ (Davis-Floyd 1998) are argued by some critics to be powerfully aligned with already dominant, hegemonic cultural forces and to represent, in Lupton’s (2013) words, aggressive masculinised technophilia (for example, Squires 2000).

Whether as a source of inspiration or as a target of criticism, Haraway’s concept of the cyborg is a key reference point in a range of debates on the impact of scientific, technological developments for our understandings of ourselves, our bodies and our relations with organic and inorganic others. Who knows, maybe the scriptwriters and producers of ‘Humans’, ‘I, Robot’ and ‘Ex-Machina’ read a bit of Haraway in the development of their ideas?

 References

 

Davis-Floyd, R. (1998) ‘From Technobirth to Cyborg Babies’ in Davis-Floyd, R. and Dumit, J. (eds.) Cyborg Babies. From Techno-Sex to Techno-Tots, London: Routledge.

digital health technologies’ (preprint), in Collyer, F. (ed.) (forthcoming), The Handbook of

Fouché, R. (2012) ‘Aren’t Athletes Cyborgs?: Technology, Bodies, and Sporting Competitions’, Women’s Studies Quarterly 40 (1 & 2): 281-293.

Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women. The Reinvention of Nature, London: Free Association Press.

Haraway, D. (2012) ‘Awash in Urine: DES and Premarin® in Multispecies Response-ability’, Women’s Studies Quarterly 40 (1 & 2): 301-316.

Lupton, D. (2013) ‘The digital cyborg assemblage: Haraway’s cyborg theory and the new

Park, S. (2012) ‘Cyborg Mothering’ in Fenton Stitt, J. Reichert Powell, P. (eds.) Mothers Who Deliver: Feminist Interventions in Public and Interpersonal Discourse, New York: SUNY Press.

Social Theory for the Sociology of Health and Medicine, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Squires, J. (2000) ‘Fabulous feminist futures and the lure of cyberculture’, in Bell, D. and Kennedy, B. (eds.) The Cybercultures Reader, London: Routledge.

My first sociological idol – Ann Oakley

In the 1980s, I came to be studying ‘A’ level sociology by accident (that’s a whole other story). My wonderful sociology teachers (first, Mavis Bayton and later, Janet Skinner) encouraged their students to venture beyond the course text (by Haralambos) and read sociological studies directly and in their original form. Through this route I discovered, amongst other things, that there were some women sociologists (who knew?) and that sociology was not just the study of activities of men – sociology included the study of women and their status and experiences in the world.

The pioneering work of Ann Oakley was important to me on both counts. I loved her focus on domestic labour in Housewife (the ‘popular’ version of her Sociology of Housework) and thought the cover so clever and memorable – looking just a like a packet of washing powder.

housewife2s

Her later work included studies of motherhood and childbirth – but it was her insightful analysis of housework that first got me hooked on her perspective on the gendered social world. Her work spoke to the feminist sociologist in the 17/18 year old me – and set me on the path to becoming a sociologist and undertaking my own work on gender.

In 2005, a collection of Ann Oakley’s writings were published in the The Ann Oakley Reader. In 2011 the British Sociological Association gave Ann Oakley one of their first Lifetime Achievement Awards in recognition of her extraordinary contribution to sociology. As Professor Oakley said in a recent interview (2013), ‘the point of [sociology] is not to theorize in an armchair kind of way, it’s about having some kind of practical impact, and sometimes you have that by opening a debate, by making people argue, and by highlighting an issue, like the treatment of women in childbirth, that was not regarded as an issue before’. She has certainly done that.

 

 

The Meaning of Names

For parents-to-be, choosing the forename of their baby can be both an exciting and daunting decision. For one thing, forenames have meanings. So, my forename ‘Jane’ is apparently a feminine form of ‘John’, which itself derives from the Hebrew name Johanan, meaning ‘God is gracious’. You can look up the meaning of your forename here.

I’m pretty sure my (non-religious parents) were unaware of its meaning when they chose my forename. I think their choice was more to do with trends and popularity of names at the time. In the 1960s, when I was born, Jane (along with Susan, Julie, Karen, Jacqueline, Deborah, Tracey, Helen, Diane, Sharon) was a top ten name for newborn girls in the UK. In 2013, Jane was not even a top 100 forename for newborn girls.

Names as cultural workhorses: age, sex and gender, and ethnicity and race

Sociologists are becoming more interested in the meaning of names, but not in the sense of George deriving from the Greek word ‘georgos’ meaning farmer, or Charles deriving from German and meaning ‘free man’. Instead, sociologists are interested in the meaning of names in terms of what I call ‘the cultural work’ that forenames and surnames do – what they tell us about a person’s  individual and social identity, and how names relate to people’s experiences and opportunities in society.

One aspect of the cultural work that names do is in terms of age. The fact that forenames wax and wane in popularity means there is an age distribution to forenames. Only 2% of the population aged under 20 have the forename Jane and the average age of individuals called Jane is 69 years old. In comparison, the average age of individuals called Elle is 10 years old. Forenames can be used, then, as a rough and ready guide to ‘age’ a person or to suggest their likely birth cohort.

Another aspect of the cultural work that forenames do is in terms of sex and gender. Invariably, forenames are sex and gender specific. This means they can be used as a robust predictor of an individual’s sex and gender (within particular cultural contexts).  There are very few names that are androgynous: most forenames are either exclusively girls’ names or exclusively boys’ names. Forenames, then, do important cultural work in ‘displaying’ sex and gender and are also important in helping ‘create’ gendered identities in the first place.

Names (forenames and surnames) also do cultural work in relation to ethnicity and racialized identities – and not always with favourable outcomes. Some studies have looked at the links between surnames, ethnicity and job opportunities. In the UK, a 2009 study for the Department of Work and Pensions  tested for racial discrimination in recruitment practices by sending out sets of equivalent applications to job vacancies across the UK, using names commonly associated with minority groups. It was found that, in order to secure a job interview, 74% more applications from candidates with ethnic minority names had to be sent out compared to candidates with ‘white’ names.

So, names are very important cultural workhorses: they can tell us a lot about social and cultural identities. Our forenames and our surnames matter a great deal socially and culturally, in both positive and negative ways.

What does YOUR name say about you?

Find out more

Finch, J. (2008) Naming Names: Kinship, Individuality and Personal Names. Sociology 42 (4): 709-725.

Hanks, P., Hardcastle, K. and Hodges, F. (2006) A Dictionary of First Names, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

 

‘Don’t Risk Dudeness’: The Politics of Women’s Body Hair

Hair on women’s bodies has been in the news a lot so far in 2014 – and I don’t mean the hair on their heads.

We have had movie star Cameron Diaz advising women to think twice before they permanently remove their pubic hair. There was also controversy over waxing products company Veet’s advertisement, depicting a woman who turned into a (bearded and very hairy legged) man because of failing to shave her legs that day. The voice-over tells women ‘Don’t risk dudeness! Veet Wax Strips. Feel womanly around the clock.’ The advertisement was subsequently withdrawn and Veet issued an apology. Meanwhile, photographer Ben Hooper recently added to his ‘Natural Beauty’ series which aims to challenge what he says is ‘societal brainwashing’ by the beauty industry. Hooper’s new series of photographs depicts young women with armpit hair.

The last time women’s body hair hit the news was in 2012, when a young Sikh woman called Balpreet Kaur responded most eloquently to an incident where a photograph of her had been posted online (without her knowledge or consent), and which had led her to become the subject of online abuse about her facial hair.

These news stories ARE news stories because each in their own way challenges cultural norms that govern women’s body hair in many countries. These cultural norms mean that, in the UK for example, over 80% of women pluck, shave, wax or remove in some other way their ‘unwanted’ body hair – eyebrows, facial hair, armpit hair, leg hair, pubic hair.

Why do so many women remove so much of their body hair? Drawing on the work of sociologist Connell (1987), women removing their body hair can be seen as a ‘technology of femininity’. It’s a way of ‘negating’ the ways women’s and men’s bodies ARE alike (both have body hair, and in the same places), in order to make them SEEM more different and distinctive than they otherwise are. Of course, women get the short straw here – women have to work hard (and spend money) to make their bodies less like a man’s by removing body hair.

The few sociological studies done on women’s body hair have found that women regard hair removal as a normal and taken-for-granted activity in order to achieve a body that is acceptably feminine. The evidence also suggests that women who don’t conform to hair removal norms report feeling negatively perceived by others – as repulsive, unfeminine, unattractive, unclean. A study by Fahs and Delgardo (2011) found that women of colour and working class women were the groups most negatively affected by failure to conform to the hair removal norm. For such women, being (too) hairy and in the wrong places added an extra layer of bodily oppression to the stigma they already experienced as marginal women. Moreover, for some women of colour, body hair can be dark, coarse and so more noticeable than is the case for white women.

In the past, as in the story of Samson, men’s hair has been associated with power, strength and virility, and facial hair (and other body hair) with manliness. Women’s hair has been more negatively perceived, with long, flowing (head) hair linked with sexual licentiousness and ‘bearded ladies’ paraded as freaks in circuses and fairs. But, before the twentieth century, it has been argued, few women in Western countries removed their body hair.

Nowadays, in the twenty first century, removal has become big business. Cultural norms including for pubic hair, are ever more anti-body hair – especially for women but also for men too. Increasing numbers of men are removing their chest and back hair, for example (although beards seem to be in fashion for men).

With both women and men removing body hair, perhaps the role of plucking, shaving, and waxing in ‘negating’ the differences between masculine and feminine bodies is disappearing: in the future, will both men’s and women’s bodies conform to the hairless ideal? Or, as the news stories I mention above might suggest, is there the beginnings of a rising cultural and consumer tide against the hairless orthodoxy –  for women at least?

Further reading

Connell, R. (1987) Gender and Power, Cambridge: Polity.

Fahs, B. and Delgardo, D. (2011) The Specter of Excess. Race, Class and Gender in Women’s Body Hair Narratives’ in Bobel, C. and Kwan, S. (eds.) Embodied Resistance, Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Lesnik-Oberstein, K. (2006, ed.) The Last Taboo: Women and Body Hair, Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Toerien, M. and Wilkinson, S. (2003) ‘Gender and Body Hair: Constructing the Feminine Woman’, Women’s Studies International Forum 26 (4): 333-344.

Toerien, M., Wilkinson, S and Choi, P. (2005) ‘Body Hair Removal: The “Mundane” Production of Normative Femininity’, Sex Roles 52 (5/6): 394- 406.

Change-slow-a-coming: the persistence of gender inequality

Two reports published in September 2013 –  one from the World Bank and one from the UK’s Office for National Statistics –  are timely reminders of the extent to which gender continues to shape the opportunities, experiences and life chances of women and men around the world.

The World Bank report Women, Business and the Law 2014 draws on data from over 100 countries to examine legislation, and also considers how women’s access to institutions and property have changed since the 1960s. Overall, the report shows that although inequalities between women and men have reduced globally, progress has been uneven around the world. Regions of the world that have made the least progress include the Middle East and North Africa, and Saudi Arabia is the country with the most laws that limit women’s experiences and opportunities. In Saudi Arabia, for example, whilst there is no law banning women from driving cars or other vehicles, the locally issued licences necessary to drive legally are not available to women. In May 2011, a Saudi woman called Manal al-Sharif filmed herself driving a car in Saudi Arabia, posted the video on YouTube, and called for other women to take up driving. She was later arrested and spent nine days in jail. In 2013, activists began another campaign to lift the Saudi ban on women driving with a women’s driving day planned for 26 October. In some African countries, though, women are making significant breakthroughs including into formal, parliamentary politics. For example, women are reported to hold the majority of seats in the Rwandan parliament, whilst Malawi, Liberia and Senegal have women head of states or Prime Ministers.

In the UK, of course, there is formal, legislated for equality between women and men which in theory allows for their same access to opportunities, experiences and life chances. Women in the UK are allowed to drive cars and other vehicles, even though jokes about women drivers are a routine part of popular culture. But, jokes and legal equality aside, gender still matters in the UK and so we should not be content and rest on our laurels. Women may have had the vote on the same terms as men since 1928, but it was 1979 before the first (and so far only) woman Prime Minister took office and even in 2013, women are just 22% of MPs in the House of Commons. In paid work, a report on Women in the Labour Market published by the UK’s Office for National Statistics in 2013 shows that gender continues to matter both in terms of the type of jobs women and men do, and in terms of the pay they get. More women are in paid work compared to the middle of the last century, but they remain concentrated in lower-paid, traditional ‘women’s occupations’ such as care services and secretarial work. For example, 82% of workers in ‘caring, leisure and other services’, and 77% of administrative and secretarial workers are women. Despite equal pay legislation, there remains a 10% gap between the pay of full time women workers and full time men workers and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees.

Women in the UK do have more opportunities than their counterparts in, say, Saudi Arabia. But gender continues to matter in the UK in a myriad number of ways, affecting careers, living standards, prospects, and experiences throughout the life course.

‘Our Stuff’ Or, A Social Science of the World in 100 Objects

We’ve all got our ‘stuff’, objects we have been given, we have bought or we have made, that we use in our lives either practically or aesthetically. Its what we move when we move house or move out, or when we have a clear out, or what we leave to others in our wills when we die. Our stuff matters to us in lots of ways, including emotionally, for our sense of self, and our social status and identity. Aleksander Hemon, a Bosnian writer uses his ‘stuff’, his objects, in his book of autobiographical essays, The Book of My Lives. He writes, ‘…you can reconstruct the story of your life from the objects you have access to, but if you don’t have the objects then there are holes in your life’.

In academic disciplines, stuff is key to the work of archaeologists and historians, and if they haven’t been able to find objects, then there are holes in knowledge about societies, cultures and peoples. Even so, museums are full of ‘old stuff’ or objects used to tell us about human history. A very successful example of the use of historical stuff in this way is the BBC Radio 4 series ‘The History of the World in 100 Object’, a 2010 partnership between the BBC and the British Museum.

I had the idea that the social sciences could take a similar approach: focusing on stuff or objects to tell people a social science of the world. With the support of the University of Leicester’s College Of Social Science, my idea has now come to fruition. It came to me after I had attended the Campaign for Social Science Roadshow event at the University of Leicester. I started to think about ways to increase public understanding of the importance of social science and the contribution it has made and continues to make to our everyday lives. My hope is that through focusing on everyday familiar objects, the project will help people recognise the value of social sciences, whose contribution to our society is too often overlooked.

So, the Social Science of the World in 100 Objects project provides a social science angle to everyday objects. Using the Leicester Exchanges public engagement forum, academics from the College of Social Sciences draw on their specialist research and knowledge to deliver thought-provoking perspectives on a range of familiar objects, beginning with the mobile phone, the television, a cotton bobbin, and a mirror.

My own piece was on the rocking horse, which I used to convey the sociological perspective on childhood as a life course stage. I’m thinking of doing one on the bra next…….

What objects would you like to see included in the series? 

Further information:

You can read the press release about the Social Science of the World in 100 Objects here, and you can also listen to a podcast of me talking about the project here.

Sociology’s contribution to saving the planet: the politics of climate change and Giddens’ missed opportunity

Sociology’s contribution to saving the planet?: the politics of climate change and Giddens’ missed opportunity

Two planets meet up for a chat. Planet A says: “How are you?”
Planet B says, “Not so well, I’ve got a bad case of Homo Sapiens”
“Don’t worry,” says Planet A, “I had the same once. They won’t last long.”

This joke was told by Anthony Giddens during his talk on the politics of climate change at the University of Leicester in October 2012. Giddens has, of course, written an influential book about the politics of climate change, and has spoken many times on this theme (see for example, one of his lectures on You Tube). My comments in this blog relate only to the lecture I heard Giddens give at the University of Leicester, at the invitation of the Department of Sociology.

Giddens focused his talk on three themes: the unprecedented threat contemporary civilization faces from global warming/climate change; the compelling nature of the scientific evidence for climate change, despite the views of climate change sceptics; (some aspects of) the politics of climate change, particularly the indifference of the populace to the issue and the ineffectiveness of governance in developing and implementing political and technological strategies to address climate change.

For me, Giddens’ lecture was a useful review of the evidence for climate change, a necessary corrective to the disproportionate attention given to the view of the climate change sceptics and, ultimately, a rather depressing hour of my life: basically, we are all DOOMED, and very little is being done about it. Above all else, though, my response to Giddens’ lecture was one of disappointment. I had expected Giddens to provide a more sociologically informed discussion of the politics of climate change itself, ideally linking this focus with his earlier works, say, on structuration, in elaboration of strategies to make the governance of global warming more effective, or how to engage with the populace. I agree with another commentator on an earlier speech on climate change by Giddens: what was missing from Giddens’ lecture was what he thinks we can do about the politics of climate change, and specifically for me, how sociology can contribute to this process.

Here are some examples from Giddens’ lecture where I think he missed an opportunity to show the importance of sociology for tackling the problematical politics of climate change.

During the course of his lecture, Giddens identified both good and bad nations in terms of the politics of climate change. The baddies are especially the USA and China (though closely followed by Russia) who between them account for nearly half of the world’s climate changing greenhouse gas emissions. The goodies are especially Germany and Denmark who have done the most to reduce their reliance on environmentally damaging energy and to develop renewable sources of energy on a large scale. In his lecture at Leicester, Giddens did not attempt to address the issue of why there are such significant differences in national responses to energy policy and to the climate change issue more generally. A sociological response here would be to ask, for example, what is it about the political, social and economic structures and cultures of Germany and Denmark that explains their progressive action with regard to tackling climate change? What is it about the political, social and economic structures and cultural processes of (very different from each other) China and the USA that makes their climate change politics so conservative? What is the relationship between neo-liberalism/capitalism/consumerism and the politics of climate change?

Giddens’ lecture at Leicester discussed ‘politics’ especially in terms of national and supra-national governance, and mainly in terms of their ineffectiveness at developing and implementing solutions to climate change. He had little to say about civil society and social movements and even less to say about the agency of individuals. Giddens’ account of climate change stressed its uniqueness as a problem; for him, no other civilization has ever faced such a threat, on a global apocalyptic scale. But that’s not to say, in my view, that we cannot learn from how social and political change has been achieved in the past and present in the face of apparently insurmountable countervailing forces. Here, too, sociology can make a contribution.

Giddens’ spoke about ‘tipping points’ in terms of key and potentially devastating events of climate change (such as the melting of the permafrost, which will in turn release even more greenhouse gases). What he didn’t talk about was ‘tipping points’ in term of the politics of achieving social change, including the idea of achieving ‘critical mass’ – relevant to the understanding of how the cumulative behavioural changes of countless individuals can make a profound difference to social change including climate change (the personal is the political).

In short, in his Leicester lecture, Giddens downplayed forms of politics other than supranational and national governance as a route to saving the planet. Yet, Giddens stood before his Leicester audience as an individual (albeit a Lord, and a public intellectual) and delivered an almost evangelical speech appealing to us as individuals in his audience to wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to climate change and the disasters we face. Presumably he wouldn’t have bothered if he believed the personal isn’t political. But in response to a question from a member of the audience, Giddens was rather dismissive of ‘nudge theory‘, which assumes that individuals can be encouraged into desired behaviours by (amongst other things) highlighting social norms.

Giddens’ lecture was engaging and his ideas make an important contribution to the politics of climate change. But in my view, Giddens (apparently the most quoted sociologist in the world) did not stand before his Leicester audience as a sociologist who was concerned to proselytise the significant contributions his discipline can make to solving the very real and imminent threat represented by global climate change.