Tag Archives: petromasculinity

The Other Side of Petro-masculinity: We Don’t Have to Engage in the Coal Culture War

A Post-class Followup by Carol Joo Lee

As much of the talk around combatting Climate Crisis pivots on “net-zero global emissions,” the phase-out efforts for fossil fuels vis-a-vis coal industry have become a flashpoint for a culture war. Part of the reason is the genuine reaction at the loss of income, family history and sense of community, but the other part, as Cara Daggat points out in “Petro-masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire,” is more cynical and drummed up by PR campaigns to associate coal with “traditionally aggressive masculine symbols,” such as football and military, and working-class trope of a family provider while appealing to white nostalgia. During the in-class discussion on the criticality of top-down approaches to mitigate climatic and environmental challenges, I became curious to find out if there’s an alternative script to the petro-masculinity narrative and what that might look like. Surely, on the ground, not every man, family, who’s been affected by the coal industry blight is holding on to the “coal is king” mantra and participating in “rollin’ coal” when they’re economically pinched and layoffs abound all around them regardless of how much Trump professes to love “beautiful, clean coal” and slashes EPA regulations. 

Rethinking, reimagining, reinventing and retraining are the words that are most often used to describe the economic future of the Appalachia, signaling a new era – a death of the old way and a dawn of the unknown – and as such there’s a lot of fear and resistance around the transition and most certainly it won’t happen overnight. During the Obama years, there were efforts to ease the transition from coal-based economy through programs such as, POWER Initiative, ARC (Appalachian Regional Commission) and TechHire. Unfortunately, the “war on coal” became the more dominant narrative and drowned out any good intentions. Incremental success was found in more regionally based organizations like SOAR (Shaping Our Appalachian Region) and Appalshop in Kentucky and UMWA (United Mine Workers of America Career Center) in West Virginia, which proved to be more effective in direct communication, resonance and engagement. 

A 2015 WIRED magazine piece recounts how after attending a SOAR conference, Rusty Justice (a fitting name if there ever was one), owner of a land-moving company, was inspired to co-found BitSource, a tech startup, in Pikeville, KY, that recruited coal miners to code out of an old Coca-Cola bottling plant. Another motivating factor was Michael Bloomberg. Justice heard Bloomberg say, “You’re not going to teach a coal miner to code” in a conversation with Mark Zuckerberg and was incensed by his patronizing attitude. Justice and his partner received 900 applicants for 10 openings. The whittling down process included a test that evaluated three criteria: “Were they logical? Were they technical thinkers? And could they actually sit in a chair for eight hours a day?” The new tech job after training brings in about $18 an hour which is lower than an average miner salary of between $60,000 – $80,000. But the article points out that among the recruited there’s hardly any nostalgia, one of the BitSource employees, a former coal mechanic, tells the reporter, “No, I don’t miss this at all… I didn’t like the work, I liked the people.” 

A former Coca-Cola bottling plant is the new home to BitSource. Photo: Philip Scott Andrews
BitSource coders work on troubleshooting two of their current projects. Photo: Philip Scott Andrews
Homes clustered together are seen out a second story window at BitSource. Photo: Philip Scott Andrews

There are other ways of reinventing work in the coal country besides coding, which is only viable to a small segment of the coal population. There has to be. It’s no secret that coal jobs have been on a steep decline for decades and employment is at an all-time low since the late 1800’s. In Kentucky alone, in 2016, the number of jobs dropped by nearly 1,500 during just the first three months leaving an estimated 6,900 employees in the industry. The 2020 pandemic accelerated the loss: Over 6,000 coalmining jobs were lost in March and April 2020. In West Virginia, UMWA Career Center helps laid-off coal workers find jobs in commercial driving, electrical technology, chemical processing and medical jobs providing $5,000 toward retraining and $20 for each day they attend classes. While many ex-miners look for skill-based work, some are turning to farming. With the help of Community Farm Alliance, a group of multi-generation Kentuckians have started growing heirloom tomatoes and hemp on reclaimed surface mine. 

An old coal processing plant in Hazard, Kentucky. Photo: Robert Hall/SmoothPhoto
Nathan Hall, left, and Todd Howard checked a field of hemp, one of six sites the pair manages. Instead of a silver bullet, Mr. Hall said, “We want to be a part of the silver buckshot that’s going to hopefully transform this region.”
Photo Credit Mike Belleme for The New York Times

In February 2019, the Washington Examiner published an article titled, “Green New Dealers look to support miners while killing coal.” Against the pushback the GND received from coal lobbyists – “They are wrong. The coal industry is not dead. It can come back, and will, when prices become favorable;” “They are getting ready to disrupt the lives of folks who want to live in Appalachia…” – the conservative news site outlined the coal decline in stark terms for its readership: “[Even before the Green New Deal] more coal plants shuttered in President Trump’s first two years than were retired during former President Barack Obama’s first term.” Greg Carlock, GND research director at Data for Progress, a progressive think tank, describes the intended approach as follow: “You overcome the perception about the Green New Deal by engaging in conversation on where they see themselves in the energy transition… You honor the culture and the role coal communities have played in making the American economy a strong, energy-rich country.”

As illustrated above, there are promising examples for life post-coal in the Appalachian regions. However, the anti-clean energy campaign will intensify before it withers and other logistical challenges impede a new technology driven industry to take hold, such as lack of high-speed internet due to rough terrain and remoteness. Logistics aside, there are other problematic areas with focusing so intently on the people of coal work: Politically and culturally, coal mining has been a shorthand for a dignified white blue-collar job and is given an imbalanced amount of priority because of the narrative associations given to the work and the geography – the backbone of American industry, American heartland, when America was great, etc. – and when we’re tapping into the rage of coal miners, we’re tapping into white rage, discounting and erasing the history and existence of Black miners in America. So while the work towards converting the minds of the people who are most resistant to actions towards Climate Change is essential, it is also equally paramount that every vulnerable group is given the care, attention and funding. 

Trumpstoreamerica.com

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ and the American ‘right’ to cheap oil

“Drill, Baby, Drill.” These words call to mind former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and the 2008 presidential election, when many Americans were outraged over $4/gallon gasoline prices, and many Republicans sought to solve this “problem” with increased drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Palin popularized a phrase written by Michael Steele, then the Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, who went on to Chair the Republican Party.  As he recounted in an interview, he was writing the speech at 2 am the morning before he was due to give it, and felt he needed something catchy. He came up with “drill, baby, drill” — which brought to mind a phrase associated with the Black Panthers in the late 1960s, “Burn, baby, burn!” — but fretted that it might not be appropriate for a nationally televised speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaNiGwhmQeo

There was no need to fret. When Steele said the words, delegates at the convention immediately broke out in a “drill, baby, drill” chant, which continued into the fall presidential campaign (even though their nominee opposed drilling in ANWR and supported cap-and-trade legislation to limit carbon emissions). The chant conveyed an argument that increased drilling would lead to the cheap gasoline prices Americans need and deserve. 

Though it would be difficult to measure cause-and-effect impact, the chant correlated with a significant shift in party platform: In 2008, the Republican platform acknowledged human contribution to carbon levels and called for “technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.” Four years later, even after a spill discharged 4.9 billion gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, the party all but adopted “Drill, baby, drill,” with a platform that opposed “any and all cap and trade legislation” and demanded that Congress “take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations.” 

In her piece, “Petro-masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire,” Cara Daggett addresses this Palin-Republican belief that Americans have a right to cheap fossil fuels:

“No wonder that access to cheap and plentiful gas and energy became the sine qua non for American well-being, and a right demanded both of the state and for the state. Even as Americans in the 21st century disagree about whether health care or food should be considered a right, there is a widespread, bipartisan assumption that Americans deserve cheap energy, and that the state has a duty to ensure it. In turn, any threat to energy supply appears simultaneously as a threat to the American dream and, in turn, the dominant position of the US in the world.”

And though her argument focuses on masculinity, Daggett acknowledges that more than half of white women voters were drawn to a different slogan, “Make America Great Again.”  These women (presumably Palin included), Daggett argues, find “security in the status quo, and therefore resent threats to fossil fuel systems and/or hegemonic white masculinities.”

Daggett also makes direct reference to Palin: “Fossil fuel systems provide a domain for explosive letting go, and all the pleasures that come with it – drilling, digging, fracking, mountaintop removal, diesel trucks. In the words of Sarah Palin, ‘drill, baby, drill!’”

Of course, the obsession with cheap oil and fossil fuel reliance flies in the face of environmental experts. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2018 that carbon pollution would have to be cut by 20 percent by 2030 to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or by 45 percent by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. And in the largest public statement of economists in history, more than 3,500 economists from both sides of the political aisle signed a statement calling for a tax on carbon — not a reduction in prices, as Palin and others have called for — as key to limiting greenhouse gases. 

Cheap oil is not a right, as it passes enormous costs onto future generations.

For Palin, “Drill, baby, drill” wasn’t just a slogan or proposed policy, it was tantamount to a divine mandate. In the years since the 2008 campaign, she coupled “drill, baby, drill” with a reference to our oil reserves as “God-given resources,” suggesting that our Creator intended for Americans to drill and extract oil. 

In 2015, while suggesting she would accept a position as US Secretary of Energy in a future Trump administration, Palin said, “Oil and gas and minerals, those things that God has dumped on this part of the Earth for mankind’s use instead of us relying on unfriendly foreign nations … No, we’re not going to chill. In fact, it’s time to drill, baby, drill down.”

If Palin is looking to God for energy policy, she should drill down instead on Pope Francis’ Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home and the words of other Christian leaders who believe combatting climate change is a moral issue.

Petro-masculinity: History Recycled, Reified

At first glance, the relationship between fossil fuels and white male patriarchy may be difficult to evince, but if captured through the prism of the cultural history of the West, especially of America, the relationship becomes anything but unclear. This is one of the more sobering points of Cara Daggett’s essay, “Petro-masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire” wherein the linkage between authoritarianism impulses and white male patriarchy is contextualized around the usage of fossil fuels, hence the provocative term “petro-masculinity.” 

Though the paper veers too deep into psychoanalytic territory and at times reads more like a rant than a journal article, simplistically accounting the “shared frustration among white men who have struggled to find a housewife willing to receive their veneration” for one of the reasons how the psychology of Trump supporters worked to elect the current president, the essay nonetheless engages provocatively with the Climate Change crisis. The paper connects masculinity with the usage of fossil fuels and the practice’s pointed, destructive tendencies. Whether it be a clever display of environmentally-focused analysis of semantics (Daggett deconstructs the word “petro” by presenting the diametrically opposed forces within, those of dead/rigidity (fossils) and those of life/flow (energy brought about through death)), a socio-historical reading of white male cultural bonding with fossil fuels (a leitmotif is the link between the boom of cars and the stable jobs and social positioning that American white man procured after World War II) or a psychologically engaged approach to defining authoritarianism (studies of Nazi psychology is keenly used) as an unrelenting entity hellbent on violently spreading its order and influence, Daggett’s paper impressively covers the paper’s complex topic in a rich, interdisciplinary way.

The essay leaves the reader with enough meat to chew on for days. What’s especially striking is grounding the fossil fuel-American masculinity dialectic as a response to World War II gender dynamics:

Instead of sturdy husbands and firm fathers controlling their wives and children, lisping bureaucrats and social workers were now running the show. World War II exacerbated the problem; with so many men away at the front, and women working in the factories, male authority was further eroded (37). 

Though this isn’t Daggett’s words (she references Corey Rubin here), the essay is filled with this sentiment. Daggett’s arguments tend to connect the response of American white men to the World War II “re-gendering” of society (which consisted of fossil fuels usage ala energy consumption) to the present moment when American white voters, as an aggregate, have channeled their masculinity through damning global warming movements by doubling down on fossil fuel usage (i.e. the support of bringing back coal power despite the industry’s economic impotency) in their unbridled support of Trump and his dangerous climate politics. Such connections lead us to ponder interesting questions about the effect of culture on one’s politics and consider how the refusal to let go of power is manifested in one’s political stances. Trump’s detrimental positions on Climate Change  aren’t just based in an anti-science ideology, but also a politics rooted in a nostalgia for a past for which a certain group can feel; the idea that this nostalgia is inherently related to fossil fuel usage is both a disturbing but vital thought in perhaps understanding the Trump phenomenon. 

It is disturbing in that, like the flow/rigidity dynamic that Daggett professes as the bizarre  dialectic within the fossil fuels-American masculinity model (with “rigidity” representing the blockade of culture destruction and “flow” representing the perpetuation of a dominant culture and its systemic rule), nostalgia, normally attributed to preciousness and innocence, is juxtaposed with ecosystem destruction and violence. However, it’s essential to recognize this “destructive nostalgia” since “The novelty and freedoms enabled by fossil-fuelled civilization are entangled with horrific violence, such that to embark upon fossil-fuelled life is to spark off mass species extinction just as much as it is to make possible the internet or global social movements” (31). 

Accepting this allows us to see the rubric of Daggett’s thesis as re-contextualizing the simultaneous “creation-destruction” element of the industrialization-natural environment dynamic around white male masculinity, authoritarianism and fossil fuels. Despite its engrossing angle regarding the stabilization of patriarchy in relation to the destructive usage of fossil fuels, the essay is built on a point with which many readers may be too familiar; that is, our treasures and freedoms are predicated on the evaporation of our planet. If climate deniers are to accept this, we could all be one step closer to ending the recycling of a culture and identity that preserves ecological demolition and gross exploitation of natural resources.