“Lay down our differences” An interpretive study of problem representation(s) and inclusion in Extinction Rebellion By: Emelie Isaksen Uppsala University - Fall 2019 Development Studies Supervisor: Malin Holm Word count: 13507 Number of pages: 45 Abstract Previous researcH on social movements shows that as a consequence of social stratification, structurally privileged groups in society are more prone to engage in and take on leading positions in collective action than those who are structurally marginalised. This essay takes off in the puzzle of deficient inclusion in social movements that identify as inclusive, and looks at how that problem also appear empirically in the environmental movement Extinction Rebellion (XR). As attention to environmental issues and climate activism has increased significantly over the last years, many activists and scholars have pointed out the importance of tackling the problem with an intersectional feminist approach. Therefore, an interpretive discourse analysis with a “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” (WPR) approacH is applied to tHe strategically chosen case of XR, and the results are interpreted through an intersectional feminist lens as conceptualised by Angela Davis (1981, 2016). The analysis contributes to the research problem through identifying two parallel problem representations, one representing the problem as proximate, local and technical-environmental and one representing it as current, global and societal-environmental. It is concluded that part of XR’s discourse rests on a problem representation that risks reproducing structural power relations. According to Davis’s conceptualisation of intersectional feminism this could have dire consequences for a movement which has shown to have potential to influence politics. Keywords: environmental movements, Extinction Rebellion, structural power, inclusion, intersectional feminism, WPR 2 Table of contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Theoretical and empirical research problem ............................................................................... 4 1.2 Aim and research question .......................................................................................................... 5 2. Previous research and background ....................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Lessons from the social movement literature ............................................................................. 7 2.2 Brief background on Extinction Rebellion .................................................................................... 8 3. Connecting the dots: Theoretical framework ..................................................................................... 10 3.2 Intersectionality in environmental movements: Environmental Justice ..................................... 11 3.3 Reproduction of structural and relational privilege .................................................................... 12 3.4 Applying the theoretical framework ............................................................................................ 13 4. Research design and methodology ..................................................................................................... 16 4.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Strategic case selection ............................................................................................................. 16 4.3 Material ........................................................................................................................................ 18 4.4 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 19 4.5 Analytical Framework .................................................................................................................. 20 4.5.1 MODIFIED WPR QUESTIONS .................................................................................................................. 22 5. Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 25 5.1 Overview and identification of the problem representation(s) ................................................... 25 5.2 Analysis of the proximate, local and technical-environmental problem ................................... 26 5.2.1 PRESUMPTIONS AND CREATION OF PROBLEM ..................................................................................... 26 5.2.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR SOLUTION AND AGENCY ........................................................................................ 27 5.2.3 WHAT REMAINED INVISIBLE ................................................................................................................... 30 5.3 The current, global and societal-environmental problem ......................................................... 31 5.3.1 PRESUMPTIONS AND CREATION OF PROBLEM ..................................................................................... 31 5.3.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR SOLUTION AND AGENCY ........................................................................................ 32 5.3.3 WHAT REMAINED INVISIBLE ................................................................................................................... 34 5.4 Contribution and answer of research question ......................................................................... 35 5.4.1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO PROBLEM FORMULATIONS ............................................................ 35 5.4.2 MANIFESTATION OF STRUCTURAL POWER ........................................................................................... 36 6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 38 6.1 Reproduction of structural power relations ............................................................................... 38 6.2 Implications for future research .................................................................................................. 39 7. Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 40 7.1 Material ........................................................................................................................................ 40 7.2 Other sources ............................................................................................................................. 41 3 “Together, our rebellion is the gift this world needs. We are XR and you are us. ” Extinction Rebellion UK, Guardianship and Visioning Circle, 2019 1. Introduction 1.1 Theoretical and empirical research problem “Climate change is a man-made problem with a feminist solution” is the slogan of the podcast Mothers of Invention, hosted by Irelands former president Mary Robinson and the comedian Maeve Higgins. Taking of in the assumption that because women, especially those living in the global South, are the ones hit the hardest by climate change, they also need to be at the forefront of developing a sustainable solution (Mothers of Invention, 2019). Throughout numerous episodes they interview female scientists and entrepreneurs from around the world who are working hard to tackle the problem from different angles. They are far from alone in emphasising the need for an inclusive approach as necessary for social change. In the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the UN explicitly recognise the need to come up witH integrated strategies that tackle climate change and preserve our environment while simultaneously combating inequality and ensuring social inclusion (United Nations, 2015, p. 8). Transferring that ideal to practice requires an understanding of how challenges and problems are interdependent and cannot be fixed with single-issue tactics. This essay therefore examines the problem representation(s) of one of the most prominent environmental movements in present day, Extinction Rebellion. The activist Angela Davis has long emphasised the need for intersectionality in collective action and the importance of linking the grassroot and global level, it is mainly her theories that serve as 4 a lens through which the results are interpreted in this essay. One of her main concerns about current political struggles of different kinds is what within development studies is called wHite saviourism; That structurally privileged people (often white upper or middle class) think of non- privileged groups as charity-projects rather than partners on equal terms (Davis, 2016). As a result of social stratification, many social- and environmental movements are initiated and managed by people with stronger capacities and resources (Bondesson, 2017; Campbell, 2014; Snow et al., 2008). When this happens, issues of less privileged subgroups within the movement are often framed as much more narrow and particularistic in their effect than they actually are – they are thereby less prioritised in action (Strolovitch, 2006, p. 908). In practice then, many environmental movements resting on the ideal of inclusion and self-organisation in reality do little to challenge