45
and as victims (a term they were unlikely to use about themselves) felt resentful and
unfairly done by (Hochschild 2012, p. 232). Paradoxically, they supported the very
governments and companies that contributed to their feelings of being ignored, left
out and disenfranchised.
6.4 Cutting in Line
The disenfranchised also saw groups such as environmentalists as cutting in line,
getting special deals, unfairly reaping benefits and failing to respect the hard work
of the alienated, conservative, petit bourgeoisie of which they were part; hard work
that has traditionally been the tool of social assent. The implication is that, to the
alienated conservative, a tree or river may be better off than they—prioritised ahead
of them. Hence, hostility grows and those supporting causes such as the environment become the enemy of the disaffected (Hochschild 2012). In turn, the enemy’s
policies and laws are rejected. However, coming to a genuine understanding of how
the alienated and disaffected feel (finding the ‘empathy wall’) (Hochschild 2012,
pp. 5–8) may allow that group to be brought into the circle of collaborative decisionmaking, helping to build a broader coalition for change and better governance.
And it is a broad coalition that is needed. The left’s views on water justice must
meet the views of more conservative groups (and vice versa) as a matter of ‘political
strategy and program’ (Brown et al. 2012, p. 245) if workable and effective outcomes
supporting ecological integrity are to be achieved. Business, climate scientists, trade
unions, economists and others need to come together as a force for change, although
different actors may move in and out of the coalition at different times.
6.5 Re-Engaging Government
Further, re-engaging government, so that it demonstrates moral and ethical leadership and does not usurp its responsibility (by, for example, simply letting the market
decide) will be critical (see Gray in Westra, Taylor and Michelot (eds) 2012; Gray
2013; Gray and Lee 2017; also Holley and Sinclair 2016). But how is government
to be re-engaged, when many people feel that ‘big government’ is the problem in the
first place, as the UK Brexit debate and Donald Trump’s election revealed? One
method is through the use of public protest and resistance, as Lock the Gate and the
Knitting Nanas demonstrate (Gray 2014, 2016; Gunningham 2019). They have
united disparate spheres of influence, acted as environmental defenders and brought
pressure to bear on government in the water and fracking context for some years
(Gray 2016). More recently, Extinction Rebellion has employed similar strategies
with significant success, pressuring government (because resistance alone is not
enough) and demonstrating how separate ‘weak strands of influence’ (Braithwaite
and Drahos 2000, p. 33) may become stronger strands when joined together.
‘Thieves, Shady Deals and Murder’: Water Theft, Buy-Backs and Fish Kills in…
and as victims (a term they were unlikely to use about themselves) felt resentful and
unfairly done by (Hochschild 2012, p. 232). Paradoxically, they supported the very
governments and companies that contributed to their feelings of being ignored, left
out and disenfranchised.
6.4 Cutting in Line
The disenfranchised also saw groups such as environmentalists as cutting in line,
getting special deals, unfairly reaping benefits and failing to respect the hard work
of the alienated, conservative, petit bourgeoisie of which they were part; hard work
that has traditionally been the tool of social assent. The implication is that, to the
alienated conservative, a tree or river may be better off than they—prioritised ahead
of them. Hence, hostility grows and those supporting causes such as the environment become the enemy of the disaffected (Hochschild 2012). In turn, the enemy’s
policies and laws are rejected. However, coming to a genuine understanding of how
the alienated and disaffected feel (finding the ‘empathy wall’) (Hochschild 2012,
pp. 5–8) may allow that group to be brought into the circle of collaborative decisionmaking, helping to build a broader coalition for change and better governance.
And it is a broad coalition that is needed. The left’s views on water justice must
meet the views of more conservative groups (and vice versa) as a matter of ‘political
strategy and program’ (Brown et al. 2012, p. 245) if workable and effective outcomes
supporting ecological integrity are to be achieved. Business, climate scientists, trade
unions, economists and others need to come together as a force for change, although
different actors may move in and out of the coalition at different times.
6.5 Re-Engaging Government
Further, re-engaging government, so that it demonstrates moral and ethical leadership and does not usurp its responsibility (by, for example, simply letting the market
decide) will be critical (see Gray in Westra, Taylor and Michelot (eds) 2012; Gray
2013; Gray and Lee 2017; also Holley and Sinclair 2016). But how is government
to be re-engaged, when many people feel that ‘big government’ is the problem in the
first place, as the UK Brexit debate and Donald Trump’s election revealed? One
method is through the use of public protest and resistance, as Lock the Gate and the
Knitting Nanas demonstrate (Gray 2014, 2016; Gunningham 2019). They have
united disparate spheres of influence, acted as environmental defenders and brought
pressure to bear on government in the water and fracking context for some years
(Gray 2016). More recently, Extinction Rebellion has employed similar strategies
with significant success, pressuring government (because resistance alone is not
enough) and demonstrating how separate ‘weak strands of influence’ (Braithwaite
and Drahos 2000, p. 33) may become stronger strands when joined together.
‘Thieves, Shady Deals and Murder’: Water Theft, Buy-Backs and Fish Kills in…