An abstract by me: "Environmental responsibility requires the dismantling of patriarchy. Discrimination against lesbians and gay men is integral to the reinforcement of patriarchy. Environmental responsibility and discrimination against homosexual people work in opposite directions..." (Since the majority of the UCA has not come out in favour of supporting the homosexual lifestyle, it cannot be trusted to be radically committed to the environmentalist cause...as borne out by the very limited extent to which it's 1989 resolutions on the environment have been acted on. However, "The one hopeful sign is the size of the dissenting minority which became evident (during the debate about homosexuality) at the Uniting Church Synod. It surprised itself. It alarmed the majority. Watch this space."
Unfortunately, some of the footnotes in the original document have not been preserved, but the reference list is retained.
"Land rights for gay whales." I remember the time, about ten years ago, that I first heard the joke. It was in Queensland. The office Young Liberal had seen it on a t-shirt at a party meeting. We laughed about it. The girls in the morning tea room didn't get it. And after a while, neither did I. In those days there wasn't anything funny about being black, or gay, or green in Queensland.
The Premier's tactic had been to lump together those who protested for land rights, or gay pride, or conservation as a single group determined to undermine the morality and living standards of decent Queenslanders. And it was true that many of the same faces could be seen at demonstrations over different issues. It was true too that many of those people were struggling to expose conventional morality as a facade for corruption and injustice, and to explore simpler alternatives to standards of living oriented towards high consumption.
But the elements of truth in the Premier's accusations didn't add up to the invalidation of the protestors' arguments. The issues were linked, but not in the self-contradictory way intended by the Premier and accepted by the joke. These days the links between land rights and environmentalism are being explored quite deliberately. (See, eg, Chain Reaction Nos 58, 61 and 62.)
But what about homosexuality and the environment? It's a subject that's hardly mentioned, even though the significant homosexual presence in some environmental groups would suggest that there's a connection to be made. It seems to me that making that connection depends first on recognising the relationship between patriarchy and environmental degradation.
Studies in the area are almost too numerous to mention, but key contributions (in English) would include those of Susan Griffin, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Mary Daly, Caroline Merchant, Ariel Saleh and other writers identified as ecofeminist. In a variety of ways and with differing emphases, these and other scholars have answered in the affirmative Sherry Ortner's question, "Is female to male as nature is to culture?" It really is a case of man against nature. It is not for nothing that we speak of wilderness as "virgin" (and assume the adjective to be feminine) and of the degradation of the environment as its "rape".
Environmental responsibility will not amount to much until it includes taking responsibility for the dismantling of patriarchy. Once patriarchy is recognised as fundamental to the ecological crisis, the question of the place of homosexuality in patriarchal culture can be asked. In her recent study of masculinities, Lynne Segal called the chapter on homosexuality "Traitors to the Cause". The "cause", of course, is the preservation of men's power over women.
Homophobia, she argues, "not only keeps all men in line while oppressing gay men; in its contempt for the 'feminine' in men it simultaneously expresses contempt for women." (p.158) "Today," she says, "it is clearer than ever that combating women's inequality, combating mysogyny, and combating homophobia, are all part of the same struggle against the oppressive gender definitions sustaining an oppressive gender system." (p.165)
From the perpective of patriarchy, gay men are traitors. Lesbians, on the other hand, are the resistance. As Adrienne Rich argued in a now classic essay, "lesbian existence" and the range of woman-identified experience which forms a "lesbian continuum" constitutes a rebellion against the "compulsory heterosexuality" by which patriarchy maintains itself. The discriminatory treatment of homosexual people is the way patriarchy deals with its traitors and puts down the rebellion. It cannot be patriarchy without it.
So the connection appears to lie along these lines: Environmental responsibility requires the dismantling of patriarchy. Discrimination against lesbians and gay men is integral to the reinforcement of patriarchy. Environmental reponsiblity and discrimination against homosexual people work in opposite directions. Having sketched the outline of a relationship between homosexuality and environmentalism, I would like to describe its relevance for a matter of some importance to myself: the relationship between environmental groups and christian churches.
For most of 1990 the Uniting Church in South Australia was involved in a debate over whether one of its leading youth workers should be allowed to retain his positions of responsibility in the church. It had become public knowledge that he was gay, and that he was not interested in being "healed" of his homosexual "condition". (Religious organisations are exempt from the provisions of the Equal Opportunity Act.) The matter came before the anual meeting of the Synod. After many hours of argument it was clear that while a majority would have homosexual people excluded from leadership in the church, it was not large enough to carry the day (70% was required for a resolution on this debate).
Eventually it was resolved that the Synod would encourage the church's appointing bodies "to seek the leading of God in each circumstance as it arises." That is, in respect of homosexual people offering for positions of leadership, local churches are free to be as discriminatory or non-discriminatory as they like. Given the evidence of the debate in Synod, most would like to be thoroughly discriminatory; and will make sure they are! A few will continue to follow a policy of non-discrimination.
The previous meeting of the Synod, in 1989, had included a debate on the church's environmental responsibility. That debate was far more amicable, and a lengthy resolution was passed which included a number of practical undertakings. As far as I can tell, that resolution had virtually no effect at all (except perhaps that members of the 1990 Synod were encouraged to bring their own coffee mugs, to minimise the use of the disposable cups which were still provided). In the light of the 1990 debate on homosexuality, it should not have surprised me that the 1989 resolutions on environmental rsponsibility have yet to be put into practice.
For as long as the christian churches remain so divided on homosexuality, with a majority remaining militantly heterosexist, their appearance of support for environmental responsibility cannot be trusted. There are increasing numbers of christians becoming involved in environmental groups. Most of them would be in the non-discriminatory minority in their churches, and should be welcomed both for the contribution they can make to the groups and also for the challenge which they will pose to official christianity. But many churches are now following their members, and seeking formal working relationships with environmental groups. It is this latter kind of relationship which should be treated with some suspicion. At some point it has to be said that, by and large, the churches do not come up to the mark ethically according to the standards of environmentalists.
Take, for example, the fundamental values of green politics as identified by Spretnak and Capra (p.56). The churches have a very mixed record in respect of Ecology, Social Responsibility, Grassroots Democracy, Nonviolence and Decentralization. In some areas the churches' performances have improved a little, but there is still a long way to go. Even the churches' record on Spirituality is ambiguous. Jung's description of religion as a means of avoiding religious experience rings true for so many because of their encounters with christian churches. And in the matter of Postpatriarchal Perspectives it is not even clear that the churches could survive such a change in perspective.
In general, they have yet to show themselves to be anything other than thoroughly patriarchal. According to these seven fundamental values, then, the churches seem to be basically immoral! The attitude to homosexuality is something of a litmus test, measuring the extent to which churches are trustworthy allies of environmental groups. According to present indications, we can't expect much of churches officially.
The one hopeful sign is the size of the dissenting minority which became evident at the Uniting Church Synod. It surprised itself. It alarmed the majority. Watch this space.
References
Mary Daly Gyn/ecology (The woman's press, 1979)
Susan Griffin Woman and nature (The woman's press, 1984 [1978])
Carolyn Merchant The death of nature (Harper & Row, 1989 [1980])
Sherry Ortner, "Is female to male as nature is to culture?", in M.Rosaldo & L.Lampshire (eds) Woman, culture and society (Stanford University Press, 1974) pp.67-88.
Rosemary Radford Ruether New woman new earth (Harper & Row, 1975)
Adrienne Rich, "Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence" Signs 5 (1980) pp.631-660
Ariel Salleh, "Deeper than deep ecology: the eco-feminist connection" Environmental ethics 6.4 (1984) pp.339-345
Lynne Segal Slow motion (Virago, 1990)
Charlene Spretnak and Fritjof Capra Green politics (Bear & Co, 1986)
