Investigating feminist resistance 
in education
Deirdre Barron
Faculty of Education
Deakin University
Geelong


Abstract
Marginalisation is a result of particular constructions of 
subjectivities through discursive practices- normalisation. Foucault, 
according to Ball (1990), identifies the human sciences, and certain 
attendant knowledges, as central to the normalisation of social 
principals and institutions of modern society. Thus, marginalisation is 
not imposed by 'police' restrictions, but it seduces, manipulates and 
encourages normalisation. In this paper I set the theoretic framework 
for analysing the normalising processes that arise through the conflict 
between the segments of society that are central and those that are 
marginal. There are many frameworks which can be used to examine the 
power relations in society. I develop a story that indicates that by 
identifying 'how' the dualistic social order is maintained and 'how' 
individuals position themselves in relation to these discourses it may 
be possible to reconstruct environmental, science and gender education 
in schools.

Introduction
Current approaches to gender and environmental reform in school based 
science and environmental education have been identified as inadequate 
in changing the unequal location of females and nature in the social 
formation (Greenall Gough 1995). This inadequacy is not a result of any 
deficiency on the part of women endeavouring to overcome oppressive 
educational practices. Rather, it can be said that what has been 
achieved is the identification inequitable practices. This is only part 
of the process of social change. Women now need to identify 'how' these 
inequitable practices are held in place. In identifying the how it will 
be possible to reconstruct gender reform practices that recreate a more 
just society. 

To identify the 'how' we need to move beyond the structural analysis of 
women's oppression. We need to understand 'how' they have been able to 
change the dominant or hegemonic discourse  from a masculinised 
perspective to include a feminised perspective. One way to do this is 
to look for instances where women have brought about social change. Not 
to concentrate on the structural obstacles that they have been able to 
overcome but rather, to look at how they have been able to centralise 
their own discursive practices.


An exclusive focus only on the structural obstacles to women's equity 
would give the impression that science as an institution as well as the 
individual men in science have been totally resistant to women's 
scientific activities, and that women have rarely succeeded in this 
institution. Of course, neither is the case. This kind of preoccupation 
with 'victimology' must be balanced with studies of women's resistance 
to marginalization and their achievements (Harding 1991:30).

The women in my research are members of groups that are seen as 
contributing to the development of gender reform and or environmental 
reform within school based curriculum. Their achievements can be read 
as ways in which they had overcome some structural obstacles in 
educational institutions or as sites of resistance.  Focusing on 
women's construction of educational reform can be interpreted as 

looking at utopias. I argue that this needs to be done as we need to 
envisage the world we want before we can actively work towards it. This 
can be expressed as nostalgia or it can be expressed progressively. I 
privilege the new construction of a future not based on a false 
glorification of the past. ie. a different kind of progress then 
currently imagined.

But as Harding's (1991:30) words above indicate we need to balance this 
view with 'studies of women's resistance to marginalisation and their 
achievements'. I am interested in looking at the resistance to 
marginalisation by feminist (and ecofeminists) within the professional 
development field. 

The role of professional development in gender reform 
Blackmore, Kenway, Willis and Rennie (1992) in looking at gender reform 
policy tell us that the introduction of these policies has not seen any 
significant change in girls' post-school choices. These authors see the 
narrow vocational meanings imbedded in these policies as failing to 
adequately address the interests and current choices made by girls. 

While Blackmore et. al. (1992) points out that teachers will privilege 
particular readings of policy documents therefore constraining this 
reading it is also important to note that the policy documents act as a 
constraint to other ways of constructing practice. This can also be 
equally applied to the area of professional development. That is, while 
the texts, verbal or otherwise, presented by professional development 
groups can not dictate the readings that teachers will make of these 
texts, they do work to construct practice. For this reason an 
understanding of the power of professional development practice is an 
essential part of gender reform programs and environmental reform 
programs.

Current directions for gender reform in education
Kenway and Willis (1993) tell us that there have been four broad 
approaches to gender reform projects at the level of policy, 
professional development and in the schools; changing choices; changing 
girls; changing the curriculum; and changing the learning environment. 
Historically and currently, Kenway and Willis (1993) tell us, the 
desire to broaden girls post-school options has been behind the push to 
increase the retention rates of females in school and post-school 
education. However, in this endeavour the reform processes have 
concentrated on changing girls choices. 

Changing choices has been premised on the view that there is a 
particular way of knowing that has more value than other ways of 
knowing. According to Kenway and Willis (1993) this has worked to 
endorse masculine ways of knowing and to undervalue 'women's work.' The 
second approach, changing girls, has a similar underpinning to changing 
choices. However, rather than seeking to get girls to change their 
subject choices it endeavours to change the development patterns of 
girls. Such an approach, Kenway and Willis (1993) argue, sees girls as 
deficient,, again women are undervalued, the girls' own strengths 
ignored. Changing the curriculum could have meant a transformative 
curriculum but it has usually meant making the curriculum more girl 
friendly. Such an approach has relied on strategies such as overcoming 
stereotypes; in the text books and in the images of women's work. The 
last of the approaches, changing the learning environment, has not been 
undertaken successfully. Kenway and Willis (1993) tell us that the 
construction of the learning environment is permeated by the dualistic 
representation model male/female. Within this dualistic learning 
environment the construction of gendered subjective positions has been 
manifested in violence against femaleness and female sexuality. 

Greenall Gough (1995) identifies similar approaches to environmental 
reform at the level of policy, professional development and in the 
schools. Changing people's behaviours has been the dominant approach in 
environmental education.

Gender and environmental reform in the context of social movements
Historically gender and environmental reform programs have developed 
from the understandings generated by activists in the women's and 
environmental movements. The women's, environment and various 
multicultural and multiracial movements of the 1970s have often been 
labelled the 'new social movements' (Jill Blackmore, Jane Kenway, Sue 
Willis and Leonie Rennie 1995;  Robyn Rowland 1984). These social 
movements were a response to the perceived '...social problems that 
have been generated by contradictions and inequities in the ways 
different aspects of life are organised' (Carolyn Sherif 1976:366). 
Through these movements the dominant image of a patriarchal modern 
society was challenged, the future of our culture was opened up to 
debate, our economic organisation, our way of working and living were 
called into question. Emerging from its roots in Marxism, feminist and 
environmental analyses of the 60s, 70s and 80s have tended to 
concentrate on the human subject, an autonomous self regulating being. 
Foucault (1990) raises the notion of the human subject as an effect of 
historically located, disciplinary processes and concepts.


The construction of individuals and groups
The challenge for the women's and environmental movements of 1960s and 
1970s was to identify the dominator and the dominated. According to 
Touraine (1983) the embodiment of adversaries as well as the 
recognition of individuals as social actors is an important aspect of 
social movements. Through this identification the oppressed would be 
able to exert pressure on the oppressors and emancipation from clutches 
of the oppressor would follow. Uncovering the practices of the 
oppressor was thus a central concern. However, there is a concern that 
if we continue to only look at the practices of the oppressor then we 
may conceal ones own complicity and our oppression of others. That is, 
we need a theory of power that is able to make visible the many 
different subject positions available to individuals.

Such a theory would need to think of the 'wielders' of power as being 
just as inextricably caught in its webs as the supposedly powerless. It 
would have to see power in terms of relations built consistently into 
the flows and practices of everyday life, rather than something imposed 
from the top down (McHoul and Grace 1993:7)

This means that we need to question the very notion of power and 
empowerment. The notion of empowerment carries with it a notion of 
power as property  and that it is possible for someone with 'power' to 
confer power on another. Thus, empowerment takes on an either/or 
hierarchical dichotomy, empowered/ disempowered, 
empowering/disempowering. Such a universalisation of the notion of 
power does not address the different forms of power that operate in any 
relationship. Power then does not have to be understood as always 
operating in an oppressor/oppressed relationship. Yet, through my own 
experiences as a woman, sharing stories with other women and the 
literature by feminist scholars, I know that the power relations among 
individuals are important  and are often based on social, political, 
and material asymmetries as argued by critical theorists. Such an 
analysis leads to questions of 'self'.

Poststructuralist theory and the construction of self
Within Postructuralist theory the individual is constructed by the 

discourses that are available. The individual is also able to resist 
certain discourses. However, the effects of normalisation operate so 
that individuals will privilege particular constructions of their 
subjectivity. A cautionary note, poststructuralist theory should not be 
understood as the new 'truth' in social theorising.

The desire is not to substitute and alternative and more secure 
foundation...but to produce an awareness of the complexity, historical 
contingency and fragility of the practices that we invent to discover 
the truth about ourselves (Lather 1991:7).

Poststructuralist theory sees power relations analysed in terms of 
discursivity.  This is based on the argument drawn from FoucaultÕs 
(1980) Òregimes of truthÓ; that discourse organises our perceptions, 
our ways of knowing, making some things visible and others invisible, 
some things true and others false. Gough (1994) stresses the need to be 
cautious in entering the discussion of the construction of 'truth'. He 
reminds us of the words of Rorty (1980 cited in Gough 1994:1) that 
'...to deny the power to "describe" reality is not to deny reality'. In 
an analysis of Foucault, Barrett (1991) stresses that discourse differs 
from language in that it is related to context. This  attacks 
structuralist assumptions that the dominant class is able to frame the 
ways in which subordinate groups live by ÔfixingÕ the meaning of 
symbols. Power can thus be understood in the context of discourse and 
knowledge. 

In seeking to understand how we come to know it is not only necessary 
to examine the discourses that are made available, it is equally 
important to examine the positionality of individuals within these 
discourses and the active process of knowledge production; a theory of 
subjectivity.

Knowledge is not produced in the intentions of those who believe they 
hold it. It is produced in the process of interaction...Knowledge is 
not the matter that is offered as much as the matter that is understood 
(Lusted 1986:4).

Individuals, through learning the discursive practices of a society, 
are able to position themselves within those practices in multiple 
ways, and to develop subjectivities both in concert with and in 
opposition to others. Thus, while our subjectivity is constructed for 
us it becomes us as we actively take up subject positions and we are 
only able to construct ourselves within discourses that are made 
available to us. But since meaning is not fixed, the availability of 
subject positions is always in a state of flux.  

If we see society as being constantly created through discursive 
practices then it is possible to see the power of these practices, not 
only to create and sustain the social world but also to see how we can 
change that world through the refusal of certain discourses and the 
generation of new ones. Hegemonic discourses foreground practices and 
techniques accorded value in coming to understand 'truth'; "We are 
subjected to the production of truth through power and we can not 
exercise power except through the production of truth" (Foucault 
1980:93).  Thus, through the analysis of discourse, poststructuralists 
are able to develop their understanding of the relation between persons 
and their social world (Davies 1989a) which has important implications 
in conceptualising social change implemented through the generation of 
counter-hegemonic discourses.

I use the term counter hegemonic rather than oppositional discourses 
because oppositional discourses do not always offer a disruption to the 

unequal power relations in society. While it is possible for 
oppositional discourses to be counter hegemonic, eg. poststructuralist 
ecofeminism, any discourse which supports the hegemonic order can not 
be considered counter hegemonic, eg. liberal (eco)feminism. Thus, while 
oppositional and counter hegemonic discourses can be the same they are 
not always the same and as such  cannot be used interchangeably. This 
implies that counter-hegemonic discourses need to critique both 
dominant and oppositional discourses and their place in the hegemonic 
order. 

If discourse is then the conjunction between power and knowledge, an 
appropriate means of understanding power and knowledge is through the 
deconstruction of discourse and discursive practice. An important 
aspect of understanding the constraints of our subjectivity is the 
notion of marginalisation.

Marginalisation is a result of particular constructions of 
subjectivities through discursive practices (normalisation). 
Normalisation is understood as,

...the establishment or institutionalization of those disciplines, 
knowledges and technologies that lay the ground for the emergence of 
the autonomous, self-regulating subject (Gane and Johnson 1993:9)

Foucault, according to Ball (1990), identifies the human sciences, and 
certain attendant knowledges, as central to the normalisation of social 
principals and institutions of modern society. 

Thus, marginalisation is not imposed by 'police' restrictions, but it 
is the result of discourses that seduce, manipulate and encourage 
normalisation. I see as central to any understanding of feminist 
resistance an analysis of normalising processes that arise through the 
conflict between the segments of society that are central, including 
those who produce education policy, and those that are marginal, for my 
study women in feminist professional development. I intend in my PhD 
work to make visible the women who have had a history in the 
development of curriculum reform. In uncovering this history I hope to 
show that women have resisted masculine interpretations of the world, 
and women have been able to normalise some of the concerns of women. 

Feminist poststructuralist theory draws on the theory outlined above, 
while maintaining the feminist understanding that gender is a basic 
organising factor. It is vital that we understand that 
poststructuralist feminism does not  abandon liberal/socialist and 
radical forms of feminism - but that it offers a way of understanding 
how power is maintained  through discourse and discursive practices. 

An ecofeminist poststructuralist perspective sees the culture/nature 
dualism as a basic organising factor. It deconstructs discourses to 
uncover how they create 'regimes of truth' that marginalise the 
feminine and nature. It is important to mention here that this 
understanding of the positioning of nature is built on the premise that 
nature is one element of the environment. That is, whilst environment 
is often thought of as being synonymous with nature and natural 
systems, such a definition is not adequate because it ignores the 
social component of the environment. As Weston (1986) argues, the 
social and economic choices that we make help to shape our environment. 
The importance of nature as a component of the environment cannot be 
neglected, but we need to see the environment as more than nature and 
natural systems, it must also include people and our social systems.  

The dual analysis of females and nature draws on the understanding that 

words that describe the 'ideal' male are also the words used to 
describe an ÔidealÕ human (Ives 1984) and according to Keller (1986) 
they are the same words that define 'ideal' science in our culture. 
Dualistic thinking has served the specific historical and political 
purpose of mystifying and naturalising as it maintains male hegemony. 
Rather than being inherent in nature or the human condition, these 
dualisms are, like other modes are ordering, describing, analysing, and 
categorising human perceptions and experience are products themselves 
of human intellect. We tend to mistake our cognitive techniques to 
comprehend the universe for the universe itself. They are cultural 
constructions that, like all other such constructions, are ultimately 
related to our experiences and perceptions within the social, economic 
and political context of our lives.

This can be interpreted to mean that, in western cultures, maleness is 
assumed to be the proper way of being and masculine scientific 
knowledge is  assumed as the correct way of knowing. Hence, in the 
culture/nature dualism humanness (culture) equates to maleness and 
scientific knowledge. Nature as opposite to maleness is constructed 
alongside femaleness. Fawcett (1989) argues that the attribution of 
human personality to nature (anthropomorphism) raises the possibility 
of nature being constructed as equal to man . But by constructing 
nature as female, were female is already constructed as inferior, man 
(culture) maintains his superior position (Fawcett  1989).  Merchant 
(1990b) adds to this argument that discourses based on the false 
assumption that 'nature is dead' construct women along side of nature 
as inert and passive, this also works to endorse the perceived superior 
position of males. 

Thus, an ecofeminist poststructuralist perspective would examine the 
gendered and cultural underpinning of hegemonic discourses in 
developing an understanding of the ways in which these discourses work 
to construct women and nature, each as the same, but different and 
inferior to males (Bird 1987, Bleier 1984 1988, Brown and Switzer 
1991ab, Di Chiro 1987, Keller 1986 1989 1992, King 1990, Spretnak 
1990). That is, how do discourses of gender work to sanction discourses 
of environment and visa versa? And how do these discourses sanction 
other hegemonic discourses? Addressing these questions may be helpful 
in exposing the ways in which the interests of the dominant group are 
supported by discourses on gender and environment. It may also be 
helpful in exposing the ways in which subordinate groups, including 
females and nature, become marginalised by dominant groups within the 
hegemonic order. This raises the possibility of disrupting hegemonic 
discourses.

Since oppositional discourses have survived throughout the development 
of Western civilisation, it would be helpful to understand what 
practices have taken place to continue these discourses? How then have 
women worked to resist these masculine world views? How do women work 
to develop counter- hegemonic discourses that not only challenge 
masculine, scientific interpretations but disrupt and transform these 
interpretations? That is, in order that we can transform masculine, 
scientific interpretations of the world we must first  develop an 
analysis of the discourses that the women have been exposed to, how and 
why they take up some of these discourses and how and why they have 
resisted other discourses. 

Ecofeminist poststructuralist theory , therefore, offers me the tools 
to explore, not only who exercises power and the practical outcomes of 
the exercising of this power but, also,  how  the mutual constitution 
of individuals achieved? 

The word how is the key to Foucault's concept of power...we can only 
study the 'who' of power - who exercises power - in conjunction with 
the 'how' (Barrett 1991:136).

A framework for investigating feminist resistance
There are many frameworks which can be used to examine the power 
relations in society. In identifying 'how' the dualistic social order 
is maintained through hegemonic environmental, scientific and gender 
discourses and 'how' the participants in this research position 
themselves in relation to these discourses  I hope to make visible a 
different reconstruction of environmental, science and gender education 
that may not be as public as the policy statements but may be 
influencing agents of change in the schools.

In investigating this issue I intend to look at 
* How, and it what ways, decisions made about environmental education 
projects? Who are involved? Whose interests are being served?
* How, and it what ways, are decisions made about science education 
projects? Who are involved? Whose interests are being served?
* Where do we find opposition and conflict? How do political and 
administrative institutions try to deal with the groups and movements 
which insist on being taken into account and even participate in 
decisions and planning.
*What strategies are used to regulate or resolve conflicts? How do 
technocratic elites entrench or adapt themselves to the challenges from 
movements and change agents? 
* What impact do these conflicts have on decisions and the process of 
decision making?
* What types of social restructuring take place around these conflicts?
* Is it worthwhile for feminists and environmentalists to draw on the 
dual marginalisation of women and nature in their struggle for a more 
equal location for women and nature in the social formation? 

In trying formulating understandings of how women have engaged with 
these issues and how they have resisted or taken up masculinised 
versions of the world I look at the discursive practices of women  and 
ask, 

*What dualist thinking is evident in the discursive practices?
*What storylines are being made relevant?
*What discourses are being mobilised?
*Whose interests are being served by these discourses? (Davies and HarrŽ 
 91/92)

Conclusion
To examine feminist resistance we need to first examine oppressive 
discourses that function to marginalise females and nature. We must 
also locate breakthroughs in feminist practice that have challenged 
men's dominance, and to look for instances where women have disrupted 
the culture/nature, female/male dualisms. In doing this it is also 
important to record 'women's history' in the development of school 
based curriculum and professional development. This history is 
interpreted as parallel but marginal to the masculine history of 
curriculum development. Such an approach would firstly, further the 
exploration of the development of women's perspectives. Secondly it 
would add to the body of scholarship concerned with developing an 
understanding of women's resistance to marginalising discourses. 

Using an ecofeminist perspective leads to the understanding that the 
subordination and exploitation of nature is premised on and informs the 
discourses that act to subordinate and exploit females and vise versa. 
The power for these discourses to be oppressive arises when one 

perspective, the ÔmasculineÕ, is valued over another, the ÔfeminineÕ; 
when one way of knowing is understood to be the ÔtruthÕ (Foucault 
1980). 

While I find it impossible to ignore current feminist and ecofeminist 
understandings of the unequal distribution of power in society, the 
benefits of adopting an ecofeminist poststructural perspective compel 
me to take up such an analysis. Such an approach not only develops an 
understanding of how knowledge is underpinned by selected truths, but 
also makes visible how even emancipatory politics can contribute to 
maintaining existing power relationships. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY



Ball, Stephen (1990), Foucault and Education: Disciplines and 
Knowledge, London, Routledge.

Barrett, MichŽle (1991),The Politics of Truth, Oxford, Blackwell.

Barron, Deirdre (1993), 'Children's Perceptions of Environment: a 
poststrucuralist account of how lower primary school boys and girls 
construct their perceptions of environment', Honours thesis, Faculty of 
Education, Deakin University, Geelong.

Bird, Elizabeth (1987), 'The Social Construction of Nature: Theoretical 
Approaches to the History of Environmental Problems', Environmental 
review, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 255-264.

Blackmore, Jill, Jane Kenway, Sue Willis and Leonie Rennie (1992), 
'What's Working For Girls?: The Reception of Gender Equity Policy in 
Two Australian Schools', in The New Politics of Race and Gender, New 
York, Falmer Press.

Bleier, Ruth (1984), Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and its 
Theories on Women, Wisconsin, Pergamon Press.

Bleier, Ruth (1988), 'Lab Coat: Robe of innocence or Klansman's Sheet?' 
in Teresa de Lauretis, Feminist Studies/Critical Studies,  
Basingstroke, UK, Macmillan.

Brown, Valerie A and Margaret A Switzer (1991a), Engendering the 
Debate, Discussion Paper, prepared by the Australian National 
University for the Office of the Status of Women Department of the 
Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Brown, Valerie A and Margaret A Switzer (1991b), Where have all the 
women gone? The role of women in the sustainable development debate, 
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National 
University, Mimeo.

Davies, Bronwyn (1989),Frogs and Snails and Feminist Tales: Preschool 
children and gender, Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Davies, Bronwyn and Rom HarrŽ (1991/92), 'Contradictions in lived and 
told narratives', Research on Language and Social Interaction, Vol. 25, 
No. pp. 1-36.

Di Chiro, Giovanna (1987), 'Environmental education and the question of 
gender: A feminist critique' in Ian Robottom, Environmental Education: 

Practice and Possibility,  Geelond, Deakin University.

Fawcett, Leesa (1989), 'Anthropomorphism: In the Web Of Culture', 
Undercurrents, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 14-20.


Foucault, Michel (1980),Power/Knowledge, New York, Pantheon Books.

Foucault, Michel (1990), Power Philosophy Culture: Interviews and Other 
Writings 1977-1984, New York,Routledge.

Gane, Mike and Terry Johnson (1993), Foucault's New Domains, London, 
Routledge.

Gough, Noel (1994), 'Understanding "nature':constructivism after 
poststructuralism.' in Contemporary Approaches to Research in 
Mathematics, Science and Environmental Education, Deakin University, 
Burwood Campus, 

Greenall Gough, Annette (1995), 'Fathoming the Fathers in Environmental 
Education: a feminist poststructural analysis,' PhD thesis, Faculty of 
Education,  Deakin University, Geelong.

Harding, Sandra (1991), Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from 
Women's Lives, Ithaca, Cornell Univerity Press.

Ives, Roslyn (1984), 'The maleness of science', The Australian Science 
Teachers Journal, Vol. 30, No. 92, pp. 15-20.

Keller, Evelyn Fox (1986), 'Making Gender Visible in the Pursuit of 
Nature's Secrets' in Teresa de Laurentis, Feminist Studies/Critical 
Studies,  Basingstoke, UK, Macmillan.

Keller, Evelyn Fox (1989), 'The Gender/Science System: or, Is Sex to 
Gender as Nature Is to Science?' in Nancy Tuana, Feminism and Science,  
Indiana, Indiana University Press.

Keller, Evelyn Fox (1992), Secrets of Life /Secrets of Death: Essays on 
Language, Gender and Science, New York, Routledge.

Kenway, Jane and Sue Willis (1993), Telling Tales: Girls and Schools  
Changing their Ways, Canberra, Department of Employment, Education and 
Training.

King, Ynestra (1990), 'Healing the Wounds: Feminism, Ecology, and the 
Nature/Culture Dualism' in I Diamond & G F Orenstein, Reweaving the 
World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism,  San Francisco, Sierra Club Books.

Lather, Patti (1991),Feminist Research in Education: Within/Against, 
Geelong, Deakin University.

Lusted, David (1986), 'Why pedagogy?', Screen, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 
2-14.

McHoul, Alec and Wendy Grace (1993), A Foucault Primer: Discourse, 
Power and the Subject, Melbourne, Melbourne University Press.


Merchant, Carolyn (1990a),The Death of Nature: Women. Ecology and the 
Scientific Revolution, New York, Harpers San Francisco.

Merchant, Carolyn (1990b), 'Ecofeminism and Feminist Theory' in I 

Diamond & G F Orenstein, Reweaving the World: The Emergence of 
Ecofeminism,  San Francisco, Sierra Club Books.

Rowland, Robyn (1984), Women Who Do and Women Who Don't  Join the 
Women's Movement, London, Routledge and Keagan Paul.

Spretnak, Charlene (1990), 'Ecofeminism: Our Roots and Flowering' in I 
Diamond & G. F. Orenstein, Reweaving the World: The Emergence of 
Ecofeminism,  San Francisco, Sierra Club Books.

Touraine, Alain (1983), The Post-Industrial Society: Tomorrow's Social 
History: Classes, Conflicts and Culture in the Programmed Society,  
(trans. F.X. Mayhew), London, Wild House.

Weston, Joe (1986),Red and Green: A New Politics of the Environment, 
London, Pluto Press.