CARE AND CLIMATE: FROM INDIVIDUALISM TO COLLECTIVE SOLIDARITY
The link between gender issues and climate change presents complex perspectives, enriched with different meanings when we observe women from small indigenous communities and those from occidental environments, often from more wealthy classes. In the previous article of the section, we met the women of the Sami people to understand the importance of preserving indigenous knowledge from phenomena that alter the local cultural heritage.
Continuing with the feminist thoughts developed so far, this article focuses on the interdependent relationship between women and the notion of care, particularly recovering the reflections of Catherine Rottenberg, associate professor at the Department of American and Canadian Studies at the University of Nottingham and author of the book “The Rise of Neoliberal Feminism,” and the feminist proposals of Nancy Fraser, Cinzia Arruzza, Tithi Bhattachrya, author of “Feminism for the 99% – A Manifesto.”
Care refers to the attention we dedicate to relationships with others and the environment in which we live. Women, historically and culturally, are holders of values related to solidarity, support for the community to which they belong, and environmental sustainability. The approach to care is a fundamental aspect of the strategies developed in response to climate change, aimed at promoting greater responsibility and attention to the needs and rights of the most vulnerable people, as well as the protection of the planet and its resources. The effects of the climate crisis disproportionately affect the most vulnerable communities and put ecosystems at risk, on whose health our own subsistence depends on, and which must be cared for and preserved.
For these reasons, the approach to care was a significant theme in the climate negotiations held during COP29 in Baku, during discussions on just transition (concerning the so-called ‘Just Transition Work Programme’) – the thread dedicated to achieving decarbonization goals through a fair and sustainable transition without excluding the most vulnerable communities. On that occasion, the Parties decided to postpone the related work on the text to the intermediate negotiations, which will be held in Bonn in June 2025. However, civil society groups dedicated to promoting gender considerations in climate policies insisted and obtained the explicit inclusion in the text of the concept of the ‘care (work) economy’. This work is as fundamental as it is traditionally unrecognized, and consequently without value for neoliberal societies, where the term value is linked to the ability to generate profit.
“United Arab Emirates just transition work programme,” paragraph n. 18
[…] “that multi-stakeholder, people-centric, bottom-up, whole-of-society approaches are required to achieve just transitions and recognizes the importance of education systems and skills development, including through upskilling and reskilling, labour rights and social protection systems, and of consideration of the informal sector, the care economy, unemployed people and future workers for ensuring a just transition of the workforce”.
‘Care (work) economy’ – According to a UN Women report ‘What is care economy?’ The care (work) economy refers to the sector that deals with the provision of care and services that contribute to the well-being and reproduction of current and future populations. This includes care work both within the formal (regulated and paid) and informal (family/social and poorly regulated and paid) sectors. This typically manifests in childcare services, elderly care, education, healthcare, and domestic social services, but can include all activities necessary to maintain, continue, and care for the world around us, so that it is possible to live in it in the best possible way.
It is not a new fact that women represent one of the most vulnerable categories, suffering more significant impacts on their economic and non-economic well-being, progress, and self-determination. However, the crucial role they play in today’s societies, from the private to the collective sphere, is not always appreciated and recognized.
Care is considered as the set of paid and unpaid activities that support and provide for the society and environment in which we live. Most of this work has historically been the responsibility of women as the only ones capable of generating new members of society, a role that has traditionally placed them at the center of family and social dynamics. However, this task is not limited to the family domain, as the care of children reflects in the community itself and determines its well-being and survival, although the public sphere has long been dominated by men, with women often excluded from political and economic decisions that concern the community itself.
Social reproduction – The role of women is traditionally linked to their reproductive function. Reproduction is a fundamental prerequisite for the subsistence of human society, yet in neoliberal societies, its importance is unrecognized, relegating those who perform social reproductive work to a subordinate position. Women often have to choose the compromise of a poorly paid job, or less remunerative than potential partners and husbands, without great career prospects. According to American philosopher Nancy Fraser, this refers to an internal contradiction of the neoliberal system, which needs women’s reproductive work for its own subsistence (i.e., the production of the ‘workforce’ necessary for productive work), but does not care to protect it. It takes it for granted and devalues it compared to productive work, creating a dichotomous relationship between productive and reproductive work, which disadvantages those called to perform the latter. The same reproductive activity is defined as “care” in opposition to “work,” almost implying a lesser consideration of the necessary skills.
In an intervention at COP29 on climate, Kenyan activist Violet Shivutse brought as an example the women of her community, who actively contributed to the reclamation of some areas contaminated by oil industries to then cultivate the food necessary to feed their children and families. These lands, Shivutse denounced, were then taken from them to make way for energy production projects without even consulting them. This example provides an image of the dynamics to which women are subjected: not only is their invaluable care work (at the family, community, and environmental level) unrecognized, but they are also deprived of the opportunities to enjoy the fruits of their work and stripped of any decision-making capacity in this regard.
The distinction between the public and private spheres refers to another topic, which has always been the subject of feminist struggle but never as in recent years has been brought to light and supported with such fervor by high-profile female figures. It is the theme of the so-called “superwomen“; that means achieving a balance between work and family, between being a professional dedicated to work and a present mother.
In the last decade, there has been a growing interest in these figures, emerging especially from the United States with the statements of some public figures openly defining themselves as feminists, from Emma Watson to Facebook director Sheryl Sandberg. These statements have given rise to a more mainstream feminist current under the media spotlight than ever before, where women are strong, individualistic, efficient, and with an entrepreneurial attitude, encouraged to focus on themselves and their aspirations in a sort of fusion between feminism and neoliberalism.
This new current, defined as “neoliberal feminism“, generates distrust among feminist scholars. In particular, Catherine Rottenberg observes how key terms – such as “equality,” “emancipation,” and “social justice” – have been replaced by “work-life balance,” and “lean-in.” According to Rottenberg, neoliberal feminism is born to give voice mainly to a limited number of privileged women (mostly white) who hold managerial positions and already belong to a social stratum where economic empowerment is possible. Neoliberal feminism ends up promoting meritocracy more than equality, emphasizing the individualistic attitude at the base of success and the self-sufficiency of women at a personal and professional level, rather than changing the structures that perpetuate gender inequalities.
Breaking the glass ceiling
In neoliberal feminism, the expression “breaking the glass ceiling” refers to the idea of overcoming the invisible and systemic barriers that prevent women from accessing positions of power, leadership, or success. The barriers are the result of gender stereotypes, and institutional or cultural practices that limit equal opportunities. In the context of neoliberal feminism, however, this metaphor is understood as a call to promote the individual success of women, encouraging them to “climb” professional hierarchies through talent, instead of promoting a radical change in the social structures from which these barriers derive.
The criticism of this type of feminism is that it ignores or minimizes the role of structural inequalities, such as wage discrimination or the lack of support services for community care. Consequently, it does not aim to resolve gender disparities for all women, but rather gives voice to those who start from a privileged position both economically and socially. These same women, sometimes, manage to reconcile the family sphere with their personal climb to leadership roles precisely thanks to the help they receive from other women, coming from less affluent backgrounds.
This underlying individualism contrasts with the goals of feminist movements, but also of anti-racist and environmentalist movements, which aim to dismantle structural inequalities within society, for the benefit of the entire community. As repeatedly emphasized, this should also be the goal of climate policies to ensure climate justice.
We are for the kick from behind
In “Feminism for the 99% – A Manifesto,” the authors propose – in response to ‘lean-in’ feminism – what they define as ‘kick from behind’ feminism. “We are not interested in breaking the ‘glass ceiling’ only to leave most women to pick up the glass shards – they write. Instead of celebrating corporate women who occupy executive offices, we prefer to get rid of offices and boards of directors.”
This different approach aims to ensure that feminism is genuinely inclusive and addresses issues that concern possibly all women, not just those who aspire to hold positions of power in large private companies, becoming in turn instruments of the neoliberal system.
Recognizing the centrality of women for well-being and sustainability, through climate policies it is possible to reconfigure both the public and private spheres in consideration of the value of care activities carried out by women, considered in their broadest sense. To date, the path to achieve this remodeling – so that we do not have to talk about a “happy reconciliation” between family and work – is long and far, and the burden of having to juggle often conflicting needs is far from being the prerogative of a few. Therefore, climate policies must take extreme account of the central role of the work (care) economy and women as the primary dispensers of care, avoiding the exaltation of female leadership figures who promote individualism at the expense of collectivism.
Sources:
- The rise of neoliberal feminism. Catherine Rottenberg
- Feminism for the 99% – A manifesto. Nancy Fraser, Cinzia Arruzza, Tithi Bhattachrya
- Care work in the just transition providing for People and Planet – Policy brief. UNRISD, Center for Environmental Justice, CISPAC, USC