Local Environment
The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20
(Re)configuring moral boundaries of
intergenerational justice: the UK parent-led
climate movement
Lisa Howard, Rachel Howell & Lynn Jamieson
To cite this article: Lisa Howard, Rachel Howell & Lynn Jamieson (2021): (Re)configuring moral
boundaries of intergenerational justice: the UK parent-led climate movement, Local Environment,
DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2021.1973977
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1973977
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 14 Sep 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cloe20
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1973977
(Re)configuring moral boundaries of intergenerational justice:
the UK parent-led climate movement
Lisa Howard, Rachel Howell
and Lynn Jamieson
Department of Sociology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
The interests of children in a climate-challenged future are underrepresented within UK policy-making and public discourse. Debates on
intergenerational equity have centred on economic logic rather than
the moral issue of harms to the next generation, or the responsibilities
of today’s generation. Civil movements play an important role in
changing public and political thinking on this issue; however, research
on intergenerational climate justice activism has so far been confined to
the youth movement. This study uses an in-depth diary and interview
dataset of 20 UK-based activist mothers and fathers to explore the
emotional spaces of parenting and campaigning for intergenerational
climate justice. Attention was paid to the role of parenthood in the
framing and motivation for action, and the way that campaigning was
sustained or impeded by activist parents’ personal relationships. The
study found that the emotional spaces of activist parenting were
managed and demarcated through moral boundary work that was used
to define, distinguish and legitimise a collective representation. These
boundaries were relational and drawn selectively to include similar
others and to form bridges with politicians; boundaries also functioned
to delegitimise the role of adults without children, and to exclude and
excuse younger children and older relatives from playing a part in
justice activism. The paper concludes by considering how these
processes might impede the movement and have implications for wider
social justice.
Received 22 April 2021
Accepted 9 August 2021
KEYWORDS
Intergenerational justice;
activism; climate change;
parenting; families
Introduction
The burdens and benefits of environmental and ecological exploitation unfold across time, spanning generations (Page 1999). The principle of intergenerational justice, as a key moral concern in
the issue of climate change, requires the present generation to “assume duties and responsibilities toward later generations” (Davies, Tabucanon, and Box 2016, 418); however so far, the
concept of intergenerational justice has largely been confined to rationalist economic and philosophical theorising on the intertemporal distribution of resources, social discounting and the
non-identifiable entity of “generations”, and often framed in the legal language of human
rights (Nguyen 2020). The notion of responsibilities to future generations is under-represented
within both the UK’s current political structures and the public sphere (Jones, O’Brien, and
Ryan 2018; Graham and de Bell 2020). Formal structures aiming to represent the interests of
future generations have been subject to the short-termism of election cycles and a lack of
CONTACT Lisa Howard
9LD, UK
lisa.howard@ed.ac.uk
School of Social and Political Science, 15a George Square, Edinburgh EH8
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2
L. HOWARD ET AL.
public support and legitimacy (Jones, O’Brien, and Ryan 2018). The role of civil society movements
has been identified as important in initiating discourse about intergenerational equity and for
garnering public support for the implementation of long-term thinking in cross-party policymaking (Jones, O’Brien, and Ryan 2018).
The recent emergence of grassroots youth climate activism has gone some way in introducing
intergenerational justice to the politics of climate change in the UK. Striking to demand more
rapid action on climate change, children and young people have deployed powerfully moral narratives of intergenerational inequality and a stolen future. While scholarship on youth climate activism
is growing, there is currently little research on the important role that parents play in intergenerational justice. Parents are in a key position to advocate for children’s climate justice through their
emotionally and practically supportive roles for children’s civic engagement (Sanson, Burke, and
Van Hoorn 2018), as well as expressing solidarity through attending youth strikes with their children
and voicing feelings about generationally unfair burdens of inaction on climate change (Martiskainen et al. 2020). The past couple of years have seen an emergence of grassroots climate activism
in the UK that is specifically parent-led. The parent movement has foregrounded the parent and
family identity in representations of intergenerational climate justice, forming groups in the UK
such as Mothers Rise Up, Parents for Future, Eco Action Families and Extinction Rebellion Families.
There are also environmentalist parents who are not part of a distinctly parental group but are nonetheless motivated to engage in various forms of climate campaigning primarily out of concern for
their children’s safety.
The parent movement has the potential to forge a new moral argument into public discourse
on climate change, one that advances longer-term thinking and an ethic of intergenerational solidarity for children’s climate-challenged future. This could assist in the public’s legitimation of political structures that change the current priorities of climate-relevant policy-making. It is also
important to study politicised parenthood to understand processes of cultural change. There is,
however, currently a lack of research on parent intergenerational climate justice activism. As
family scholars have argued, personal life is consequential for environmental challenges
because families and personal relationships effect macro social change; the agency, capacity
and motivations to act on climate change are grounded in the practices of embodied, emotionally
charged intimate relationships (Jamieson 2016; Howell and Allen 2019). This paper addresses this
gap in research by drawing on an empirical qualitative dataset to explore UK-based activist
parents’ conceptualisations of intergenerational justice that arise from the emotional spaces of
parenting, family life and activism. In analysing parenting as a site of ethics and responsibility
(McEwan and Goodman 2010), this paper looks at the micro-scale of social relations that foster
and circulate meaning within these spaces.
Parental environmental activism
Parenthood and political action are not new allies, although past research has focussed mainly on
mother activism (e.g. Katz 2017; Naples 1988; Panitch 2012; Weed 1993). Brookfield (2012) provides
an account of women’s political struggles in Canada during the nuclear crisis of the Cold War, when
the government’s regime of female labour force-supported civil defence was perceived by Canadian
women as a negligent response to protect citizens. Motivated primarily by securing safety for their
children, activists mobilised a pacifist and international disarmament agenda which contributed to
ending the crisis. The US environmental justice movement arose from the deployment of the symbolic power of the mother identity in the fight to protect children from local toxic pollution. More
recently, mothers have broadened their scope of motivation beyond their own children to advocate
for wider issues of social justice, in what scholars have called the “21st century global motherhood
movement” (Conradsen 2016, 2). This movement has operated within a feminist ethic of care principle (Tronto 1994), tackling issues of public concern such as disability, domestic violence and school
reform (Panitch 2012).
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
3
Justice and morality in family life
While justice is often represented by the formal language of legal rights, obligations and equality
between individuals (McCarthy, Edwards, and Gillies 2003), within everyday embodied relationships,
justice is enacted by a sense of what is right or wrong, tending to follow cultural codes that specify
what is “good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable in society” (Stets and Carter 2012, 121). Alternatively, feminist perspectives have shown that morality in practice can be rather more complex, being
emotionally guided but reflexive, operating dynamically, relationally and negotiated according to
the specific context (Sevenhuijsen 1998; Held 1995). “Doing the right thing” as a parent is driven
both by cultural narratives and by the relationally context-specific moments of family life. A
strong sense of moral responsibility for the interests of children is an outcome of “the ways in
which we have constructed the relational social categories of Adult and Child in contemporary
societies” (McCarthy, Edwards, and Gillies 2003, 135). The parental moral identity, influenced by
gender and class, shapes ideas about fairness towards children that “encapsulates what is good
for children, and what constitutes a good childhood” (McCarthy, Edwards, and Gillies 2003, 107).
What follows is an outline of empirical family studies that have shown the dynamic and contextual
nature of morality within ethical environmental family practices, which operate in tandem with the
structuring role of cultural codes and discourses.
Family, environment and morality
There is a small body of empirical work on environment and family intersections. Phoenix et al.’s (2017)
in-depth study explored how parents and their children interpret cultural discourses about environmental responsibility within different socioeconomic and local contexts in the UK and India. They
found that ethical and responsible family consumption practices were structured by socioeconomic
and material affordances, gender and generation. Affluent families in the UK drew on Minority
world environmentalist discourses to moralise and account for the inaction of diverse others who
were “unconcerned” and “ignorant” about the environment, and to disassociate themselves from “hairshirt” fanatic environmentalism. These narratives of “responsible privilege” helped to distance them
from others to “affirm particular identity positions” (371) and to avoid being accused of moral hypocrisy in relation to high consumption practices. The diverse “others” included their own children, who
were often viewed as less responsible than their parents, highlighting parent–child power relations
that constrain children’s agency to act on their own environmental concerns.
A study by Shirani and colleagues (2013) also looked at consumption, exploring ethical responsibilities to future generations within home energy use practices. The authors used a “living links”
concept to understand connections participants made to environmental futures through the presence or absence of children. The authors found that both parents and those without children
were concerned for the future and felt connected to it, but that taking personal responsibility for
the future was contingent on the pressures of daily family life and moral discourses of “good” parenting, which often competed with moral environmental discourses.
These two studies provide useful insights into the negotiation of family life and environmental
ethics within the milieu of household consumption practices. To date, research has not explored
such a set of negotiations within the ethical and emotional sphere of activism. Moral discourse
within social movements can create group bonds and boundaries that are activated within social
dynamics to distinguish shared identity within and between groups (Eliasoph and Lichterman
2003; Brown 2009). Symbolic boundaries create a collective representation and group vocabulary
which can re-create cultural codes and narratives (Eliasoph and Lichterman 2003; Hitlin and
Vaisey 2010). In this vein, it would be useful to understand how parental identities interact with
the moral discourses and identities of environmentalism in this emotional space, to explore the
potential of refurbishing and recirculating cultural codes and narratives that may be consequential
for social justice.
4
L. HOWARD ET AL.
Methods
The data presented in this paper are from an in-depth qualitative study involving interviews conducted from summer 2020 to early 2021. The project used a gender-sensitive approach to explore
the lived experiences of UK-based mothers and fathers mobilising to address climate change. The
gender-sensitive approach aimed to bring to light similarities and differences between accounts
of participants of different genders. As outlined in the literature review, past research on parentled activism has tended to focus solely on the role of mothers; with this in mind, one aim of this
study was to contribute additional knowledge to the underresearched field of men, masculinities
and responses to environmental issues (Connell 2017). My research questions included: (1) How
does being a parent play a part in the framing of climate and ecological change, and in the motivations to become an activist? and (2) How are campaigning practices sustained or impeded by
parents’ personal relationships?
Recruiting was conducted through social media and snowballing. Participants were offered a
£25 donation to a charity of their choice as a thank you. Informed consent was obtained via a
signed information sheet. I used a purposive sampling strategy, inviting parents or guardians
based in the UK who considered themselves concerned about climate change and its impact on
the future of their children, and who were involved in any kind of climate change campaigning.
Using a gender-sensitive approach, it was apparent in the early stages of recruitment that I was
receiving considerably more interest from mothers than fathers, which was not ideal as I had
planned for a gender-balanced sample. I decided to turn my social media recruitment towards a
direct appeal to fathers, conveying that their voices were currently under-represented in my
study. I also made greater use of the snowballing technique to leverage the contacts in my
network which enabled me to approach fathers directly. These targeted approaches were
largely successful, and I recruited 12 mothers (including one stepmother) and 8 fathers. Of
these mothers and fathers, only two interviewees formed a relationship couple. This number of
participants was deemed suitable because I had started to reach saturation of data themes, and
the demands of homeschooling during the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions on mobility made
recruiting parents very challenging.
My data collection methods included a solicited, semi-structured qualitative diary exercise carried
out over the course of two weeks prior to the interview. As the study’s focus was on the personal life
context of parent activists, the aim of the diary exercise was to capture the everyday thoughts,
feeling and actions relating to environmental issues in the course of family life, the more
mundane moments that may be difficult to recall in an interview setting. Diary studies are also
useful for “capturing the weight and meaning people attach to different events, issues and activities
in their lives” (Bartlett and Milligan 2015, 14). A pilot study revealed that participants needed guidance about how to structure their diary recordings, so I provided a template document with
table columns for the date, time of day, who they were with, and the details of the thought/
action/feeling.
The diary exercise was followed by an in-depth, semi-structured video call interview. My interview schedule was open but included several core questions about routes into activism, motivations, how parents see climate change and the future in relation to their children and their
parenting role, and how they felt parent-led campaigning was different to other types of environmental activism. I made field note memos as my thoughts and analytical insights arose throughout
the fieldwork period.
I collected basic demographic and household income data. Analysis was an iterative and
ongoing process, reading field notes, transcript and diary accounts multiple times for familiarisation before employing line-by-line inductive coding. Higher-level concepts were then identified,
reading across the dataset. I used N-Vivo to assist in organising the data into codes, categories and
themes.
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
5
Findings and discussion
Participant characteristics
Participants ranged in age from 20s to 50s, all had tertiary education, with medium to high household incomes. All but one participant were White, with one person of Pakistani heritage. Children
ranged in age from pre-birth through to teenagers and, in one case, adult children. Although I originally planned to interview parent couples, my recruitment efforts revealed that it was most common
for only one of a parent couple to be campaigning actively, with the other parent providing practical
support of childcare and participation in ethical family consumption practices. I was given two main
explanations by participants for this: the time and emotional input required for campaigning was not
sustainable for both parents concurrently; and a lack of interest or motivation to campaign. All but
three of the participants had been campaigning for less than 5 years, with their previous environmentalism confined to ethical consumption practices.
Despite the UK being in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, the diary exercise provided evidence
that everyday concerns around climate had not abated. Participants expressed a great deal of worry
about the future climate-changed world, and many spoke explicitly of feeling morally compelled to
act; One mother told me: “I approach activism as a moral thing on the grounds of that I couldn’t not
do it. Like I would feel like I was failing as a mum if I wasn’t doing it. I don’t think it’s a choice for me”.
One father expressed similar sentiments: “The effects […] not so much in my lifetime but certainly in
my children’s lifetime, that’s where the moral obligation comes in”. Participants predicted food insecurity,
societal breakdown and mass extinctions without a radical change in the current order. They felt a great
deal of anxiety for their children’s future, but activism often helped to counter these difficult emotions.
Participants found a shared sense of desperation but also a sense of purpose and solidarity with
other activists, revealed in one participant’s diary which documented how regular activist group
meetings provided “connection and space to talk about feelings” that related to fear, anger and
sorrow. One father told me of a highly emotional encounter with an unknown fellow parent activist
at an Extinction Rebellion protest, with whom he had shared tears and an embrace:
We had this great fear for our families and for our children, and this sense of wanting to look them in the eye
later on. There’s so much based on what a sense of what the future may be. It’s an awful shadow to live with.
Types of activism varied among the parent sample. Several were involved in parent-led groups
which campaigned for change at both the local and national political levels. Many were part of
the direct action group Extinction Rebellion; some were involved in activism to put climate
change on the school curriculum; others were pushing for change in employer cultures and practices. All parents spoke of the need to address both governmental and cultural levels to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions and to encourage people to change their family practices towards a
greater care for the environment.
Some practices of activism within this sample followed a gendered pattern. Although both
mothers and fathers took part in direct actions, it was the male participants who more frequently
reported preferring disruptive protest tactics, and asserting their politics within public spaces –
for example by giving talks or approaching members of the public in the street to “communicate
the facts” of climate change. These findings of dominant, self-expressive masculinities support
work by Chan and Curnow (2017) that found men to be more likely to see themselves as experts
and more likely to take up more conversation time with rational arguments. However, using a
reading of gender as a situated social practice rather than a set of essentialised traits (Poggio
2006), nuances in the performance of masculine identities were found across the dataset. Within
some spaces and places, fathers in this study articulated a reflexive, pro-feminist masculinity; for
example, one father – Marc – spoke of “taking Extinction Rebellion principles” into his workplace
managerial role to try and undo the hierarchies of business norms; by having an “open mic
session” with his team members to “talk openly about feelings and issues”, towards being “kinder,
more human, to care more about people”.
6
L. HOWARD ET AL.
Parents were trying to manage the world for their children and they embedded climate and
environmental issues into family life. All of the participants practiced as much as they could in the
way of low impact travel and consumption and felt the need to model the “right” behaviour to
their children. Ecologically oriented childrearing also included an encouragement of children to
engage with the natural world, and for older children, family discussions were regularly initiated
around the politics of climate and ecological issues, including gender and racial injustices that underpin ecological issues. I was told that this was in part due to the lack of climate change and ecological
education on the school curriculum, although parents felt it was ultimately their “job” to teach it. The
diary study revealed that campaigning was often all-consuming. For the participants in my sample,
making sense of their moral identity as parent activists required a relationally specific, selective moralising of the actions of children, parents and extended family members. By distinguishing the moral
contours of action on intergenerational justice, parents were clarifying their belonging in the
emotional spaces of parent campaigning, to enjoy the solidarity of ingroup relations and to
advance their justice rhetoric within a particular meaning of family. What follows is the presentation
of three themes from the data which demonstrate how parent activists draw moral contours defining
whom they feel should be taking action for intergenerational justice. Pseudonyms are used
throughout.
Moralising of children
Without prompting from me, several participants raised their reproductive decisions as a moral issue.
They felt that having children was a choice – but one that was important to deliberate over responsibly in light what they saw as the problematic environmental impact of raising children. The
decision to have children was justified by reframing it as a moral act; raising an ecologically conscious child could rectify the impact:
We had some friends who had made the choice that they didn’t want to bring children into this world. They had
a really negative idea of the impact of it. But mine and my wife’s perspective is actually, children bring hope, and
they are going to help correct the wrongs. And so by raising our children in the way that we think needs to
happen, they are then going to help make the world a better place. (Ryan, 30s, two children age 3 and 5)
Parents’ narratives of responsible reproduction pointed to the politics of reproduction seeping into
everyday climate discourse. Contemporary richer-world framings of parenthood suggest it is a personal choice and matter of ethical deliberation (Dow 2016). Freya justified her reproductive
decision by extending the moral contour around her child’s generational cohort. Further distinguishing her future child’s moral status, she morally delineates the “trouble” with “the
current generation”:
Hopefully this is going to be a generation of people who at no point think that their actions don’t have an impact
on the planet […] So I’m hopeful that the next generation and my child included I’m going to live pretty consciously. I suppose the trouble is the current generation, making sure that we get that in motion as soon as possible, so that they have a hope! (Freya, 20s, pregnant with first child)
In speaking of the optimism created from raising “good” environmentalist children, participants were
reflexively linking procreation, responsible parenting practices and climate change issues, demonstrating the multi-layered, complex ways that participants understood and enacted intergenerational justice. Several parents spoke of feeling optimistic that their children are “going to make
everything better”. Charlotte – who, unprompted – told me she felt very guilty about having four
children, felt a sense of relief in watching her daughter connect with nature, a relationship she
had fostered through engaging her children in outdoor family practices:
[…] my daughter said “Mum, shall we go and see that tree on the way home? I’m really looking forward to seeing
it again!” […] And it was one of those moments where I thought, it’s going to be OK! Like, if that can happen all
the time, like if a human can love that tree […]then we’ve got hope, haven’t we? (Charlotte, 30s, four children
age 8 and under)
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
7
In contrast to the moral boundary of “good” environmentalist children, some fathers in my sample
were more likely to be ambivalent about the moral agency of their children, and drew boundaries of
generational hierarchy to distinguish children’s innocence and lack of environmental responsibility
(Phoenix et al. 2017). Peter (30s, two children age 1 and 5) talked about encouraging his son to enjoy
engaging in books about sea life but felt “sad” that this entailed learning about plastic pollution as he
believed that his son was “not complicit” in this issue and asserted that “it’s not children who should
be sorting this out”. Similarly, Alexander (30s, one child age 13) thought that it was unfair for today’s
children to have to change their standard of living from that enjoyed today, adding that Greta Thunberg “shouldn’t be campaigning for the climate” because she is “only seventeen”.
However, the perceived lower status of, and lack of power held by, children was capitalised upon
by several parents. When I asked Ryan about family identities in campaigning, he felt that the presence of children on a climate march “can be really neutralising” in the face of public aggression, and
he believes people see them as separate from consumer society, therefore morally guarding parents
against accusations of hypocrisy:
[… ..] they are kind of our part of society, but they’re not. They’re not consuming and they’re not part of that
system. So actually, that detachment allows them to have a bit of a different perspective. Because I think a
lot of people who are adults have bought into the system and therefore think that if they start to criticise it
then they’re becoming hypocrites, and that they can’t do that. Whereas children, being separate, kind of
have that role to play. (Ryan, 30s, two children age 3 and 5)
With other participants, the picture of children’s moral status is nuanced, with Marc highlighting
some of the tensions in what he sees as burdensome climate action and missing out on a
“normal childhood”:
Diary 5 Sept: I sometimes wish Millie was more active on climate as she was back in 2018 and 19. But at the same
time I want her to just have a normal childhood. I don’t want to fill her head constantly with talk about climate
breakdown, ecosystem destruction, mass extinction, broken democracy etc. It’s too much. Also the burden for
action should not be on the young. (Marc, 50s, one child age 16)
Like other fathers in this study, Marc is conforming to a cultural idea of childhood as one of innocence and passivity, but as a social construction, childhood is contingent on where different cultural and institutional structures set the upper age limit (Hill and Tisdall 1997). In Britain, Marc’s
daughter’s age of 16 is where children are seen to begin the transition into adulthood, and this
could play a part in Marc’s ambivalent feelings about the suitability of his daughter taking part
in climate activism.
Moralising the parent identity
Participants said they strategically foregrounded their parent identity in campaigning to present
moderate “normal everyday parental concerns”. This was chiefly a strategy to counter the stigma
of the environmental activist identity (Barr and Gilg 2006; Hargreaves 2011). Citing the desire to distance themselves from what they felt the public saw as “a bunch of tree hugging hippies”, participants told me that “Extinction Rebellion is not my identity”, and “I’m a climate funder,
campaigner, board member, Investor, charity trustee but I’m a mother first”.
Marc demonstrated that parent activists themselves can stigmatise environmentalists:
I don’t like activism and protest [labels] because it just compartmentalises you, and then you’ll just be one of
those people! I really like the term “parents for the future” [organisation]. It’s normal people who have had
enough, and that is my experience with XR, it’s just normal people who want to do something.
The presentation of a professional frontstage image (Goffman 1959) was one way that the boundary
between parent activist and environmental activist was re-configured; Ryan explains how he attenuates the environmentalist cultural stereotype by sartorially presenting an image of respectable
professional:
8
L. HOWARD ET AL.
I purposely make the effort to wear a shirt, so that I’m not perceived to be some hippie! Because that’s the perception often, that it’s some sort of crazy hippie, and then that doesn’t give you much gravitas. (Ryan, 30s, two
daughters age 3 and 5)
Parenthood was seen as playing an important moral role within society. Tim (50s, two sons age 20s)
asserted, “there’s no job more important than being a parent … we all bring up our children as best we
can, and hope that the next generation is going to be better”. The moral agency of parenthood meant
several participants made assumptions that parents were more concerned than people without children about the global threat of climate change. Sophia (30s, one child age 2) thought being a
parent meant “[climate change] it’s scary. People like my sister, who do not have a child, don’t
quite feel it maybe”. The assumption that the capacity to care about children requires the position
of child carer constructs a symbolic boundary that excludes non-parents in claims to and responsibility
for the future (Rosen and Suissa 2020). Additionally, the catch-all parental frame does not explain the
different levels of concern for children between parents; Sophia later told me that her husband, who is
not a campaigner, was not particularly worried about climate change’s impact on their daughter.
The in-group thinking about motherhood arose again when a remark made by an organiser of
parent group during a phone call spurred me to record this field note:
12 June: Spoke to Jane who said she could help promote my study invitation, we chatted about the origins of the
parent group. In the context of her telling me that climate change makes her terrified for her children, she asked
whether I have kids, to which I replied no. I don’t know why she asked me this; it made me feel a bit alienated
from her. I wasn’t sure whether she considered it a pre-requisite for being scared about the future, or a pre-requisite for researching parenting.
I felt Sophia’s question might relate to gendered assumptions about me as “the imaginary mother”
as a “responsibilised moral agent” (Wilkinson 2020, 667) in my investigations of intergenerational
concern. I decided that going forward, I would only disclose my non-parent status if asked directly.
This situation led to Lena displaying embarrassment about her assumptions that I had children:
Lena: […] So amongst my friends that don’t have babies … . I think they’re not as much [environmentally conscious] as me because they don’t have children, I mean I think when you have … .. do you have a child?
Interviewer: I don’t, no!
Lena: Well I was going to make the assumption, that I think people are more passionate when they’ve got children, thinking about the future, but obviously that’s not true because you’re … [ chuckles] obviously very passionate! (Lena, 30s, one 1 year-old, 2nd baby on the way)
In subsequent interviews I gained an insight into how moral parenthood was mobilised. Participants explained that the parent identity was deliberately deployed as a way to broach the boundaries of traditional environmentalism; having children along to a march was seen as “a really
powerful bridge between climate activists and the general public”. Marc told me he would often
say to people he canvassed “it’s often framed as the green environmental issue, and my point is
no, it’s not! It’s about our children’s future!”. Marc used this as a strategy to find common emotional
ground with people he canvassed on the street: “Quite often the first thing I’ll say to people that I talk
to on the streets as well, is: have you got children? […]. What we’re trying to do is protect our children, which is our first responsibility”. This indicates that Marc sees all parents as holding a responsibility to take action on climate change and that his hopes of tapping into this moral realm would
augment the movement.
This moralised parent identity as a strategy to find common ground with the public extended to
building bridges with levers of power. One parent group organiser said that MPs were usually
happier to engage with young families because it feels less confrontational than constituent meetings with traditional environmentalists, based on their assumptions that parents with children would
be law-abiding and “kind of normal”. Patricia, the co-founder of a parent action group, outlined her
thoughts that being a parent is a common experience that could cut across political as well as class
and race boundaries:
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
9
The parent voice is so powerful … I think that idea of providing for your children, providing for their welfare is
intrinsic to so many people. No matter where they sit on the political spectrum […]. And I think any parent will
tell you that being a parent is a leveller, in the sense that you start speaking to all kinds of people that you
wouldn’t have done otherwise. […] so there is just something quite unifying about being a parent that I
think does open the door. And no one, whether you’re on the political right or left would want to say that
they want to do harm to children, or their children. That’s a complete political anathema! So the starting
point is, we’re mobilising for a healthy planet for our children, no one can disagree with that! (Patricia, 30s, 3
children of 2, 7 and 9)
Moralising extended family
The emotional space of parent activism was delineated from everyday discussions with other family
members. Participants told me climate change and the impact on today’s children was rarely discussed within conversations with extended family, often because they felt older relatives “just
don’t get it”. Several participants spoke of “drawing a line” when I asked them what they thought
about their own parents getting involved in fighting climate change. Peter explained to me that
his parents “haven’t really grown up with it, so I kind of draw a line there I think”. Peter went on
to assert that “it’s our generation who are the ones who need to be dealing with it”, serving to
both excuse and exclude his parents. In a similar way, Marius made excuses for his parents, comparing levels of consumption in his evaluation of his parents’ contributions to climate change:
I think they knew a lot less than we know. My parents were probably a bit wealthier than I am, and yet lived a
much lower carbon lifestyle […] they’d go on holiday only once a year. Whereas, by the time I was 25, I was on a
flight every couple months or something. And so I think that they are statistically less culpable. And morally in
terms of like, knowing the impacts of this stuff, they’re less culpable. (Marius, 30s, one child age 4)
This selective moralising that excused older people was also evident when I asked Patricia what she
thought about generational differences in concern and action for climate change. She did not talk
about civic or political participation, but rather connected consumption to the environmental future:
I think that generational issue is really difficult, like grandparents who fly all the time, haven’t changed their lifestyle, and who are like: well I haven’t got much time left! And I can see where they’re coming from as well.
Patricia’s recourse to time and life stage as an excuse was interesting when we consider a distributive
intergenerational justice framework would in fact see grandparents and their historical contribution
to greenhouse gas levels in a greater position of responsibility. However, the avoidance of imposing
expectations on some relatives – including siblings and aunts – was also performed as an act of care,
of wanting to preserve good relationships, and to prevent emotionally close relatives from feeling
guilty in comparison to the standard of others, as Marius explains:
My family are very close […] my brothers, my mum and dad - I accept them as they are, and I don’t want to try
and change them. But at the same time […], even if you’re not judgmental about it - by people knowing you’ve
got a stance on it affects other people’s views on, views on themselves. And that’s a difficult thing to do in a
family
The selective moralising that bracketed off extended family members from taking responsibility can
be seen as an act of care; concerns for the future are suspended temporarily to protect the present for
their relatives. Participants felt that they did not want to impose their politics on intimate others,
they did not want to make them feel awkward. It is not to say that grandparents or other relatives
are not concerned about the implications of climate change on future generations, as research has
found (Shirani et al. 2013).
In a similar way, Dee suspended any judgment of family consumption interactions because it was
entangled with practices of giving and receiving care, and recognised that accepting transgressions
of her own ethical boundaries was part of the wider goal of protecting life in all its forms:
… And it feels like grandparents, and aunts and uncles, and godparents […] are allowed to do what parents
can’t do, they’re the rule breakers! […] So you take on board the specific circumstances of family member or
10
L. HOWARD ET AL.
the person who you might have differing ideas from […], you suspend that on the basis of the specific person, I
think. I think that environmental stuff, you’ve got to approach it from a sort of, a humanity approach. This is
about protecting life, people as much as it is about the animals. No one goes first, right? (Dee, 40s, two children
age 6 and 3)
By reasoning that there is no natural hierarchy in nature, Dee is adopting an equality of all approach,
which respects “the intrinsic value of every other person” (Adam and Groves 2007, 147). This perhaps
shows that in the context of personal life, using the principle of an ethic of care in the message for
intergenerational justice can sometimes be a complex matter.
General discussion
This paper set out to investigate activist parents’ reasoning of intergenerational justice in everyday
lives, in particular how this arises from parental identities and moral discourses and identities of
environmentalism. In so doing, it explored the potential for cultural narratives about activism for
intergenerational justice to be refurbished and recirculated. The study found that motivations to
act on climate were deeply emotional; as well as grief about worsening global conditions, parents
felt fear about the future for their children which drove a moral imperative to effect change. The
emotional spaces of parenting and activism were managed and demarcated symbolically through
relational, discursive means through boundary work (Lamont and Molnar 2002; Pachucki, Pendergrass, and Lamont 2007). This created moral spaces that were exclusionary, deployed to define, distinguish and legitimise the collective activist parent identity (Lamont 1992). Adding to the theory on
boundary work, the research also found that symbolic boundaries were often re-drawn in a selective
way to include or excuse others.
Children and childrearing were the subject and focus of parent activists’ symbolic demarcation,
informed by cultural scripts and codes about what it means to be a “good” parent for the climate.
Moral dilemmas about choosing whether to procreate may be influenced by environmentalist discourses of the carbon footprint of raising children. The politics of reproduction are increasingly overlapping with environmental politics (Lappé, Hein, and Landecker 2019). Procreation has been
demonised as a burden on ever-depleting resources, reproducing one’s impact well into the
future as a carbon legacy (Murtaugh and Schlax 2009; Wynes and Nicholas 2017; Sasser 2018). At
the same time, children are often culturally represented as an optimistic project of hope for changing
the trajectory of human impact. Childhood is seen as a crucial pedagogical window to shape ecological values, norms, practices and identities that enable the environmentalist child to grow up as a
steward of the planet (Kraftl 2008). This futurism is seen in the responsibilisation of children as subjects of education schemes and sustainability policy interventions, children are seen to be sites of
influence and progressive consumption change within family and home life (Phoenix et al. 2017),
as well as being encouraged by parents to collaborate in ethico-politicised family practices (Payne
2010; Istead and Shapiro 2014). Parents in my study showed how the politics of reproduction and
the cultural representations of children as hope for the future influence their justification to have
children, and by raising “good” environmentalist children, parents kept their in-group parent activist
status and this reaffirmed a desirable identity position (Boddy et al. 2016). However, this may be problematic as Walker’s (2017) empirical study found, assigning children the identity of “next generation” environmental activists can be at odds with the extent to which children wished to push
for change. Another issue with boundary work around the “good” environmentalist family is
when the privileges and affordances of a future-oriented environmentalism are not enjoyed by
all, a classism that was found by Phoenix and her colleagues (2017) when environmentalist
parents disparaged the non-environmentalist “other” family.
In contrast to framing children as moral agents for the future, some parents – in particular the
fathers in my sample, drew boundaries around their younger children, asserting they should not
have to “sort out the mess of today’s generation”. This consigned children too innocent and noncomplicit passive subjects, as victims rather than actors (Stephens 1996). This links to cultural
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
11
ideas about children lacking power and status, which has the effect of dismissing their agency to
advocate for themselves, to think independently (Cassidy and Lone 2020) and to influence the
environmental views of others (Uzzell et al. 1994). Childhood is a bounded social category within
most Western societies (Kraftl 2008), defined by adults rather than by children themselves (Hill
and Tisdall 1997), and some see children as humans-in-the-making rather than human beings
(Qvortrup 1994). However, the boundaries between childhood and adulthood are problematic if children are to be recognised as legitimate social actors to participate in climate decision-making
(Cassidy and Lone 2020; Dunlop et al. 2021).
Parenting was considered “the most important job”, and being a parent was a salient identity.
Assumptions about the motivations of people who did not have children are a form of disidentification and further delineated the in-groupness of moral parenthood. While not all of my participants
were in heterosexual nuclear family units (there was one same-sex relationship and several participants who had separated from their partner), the majority were part of heterosexual couple, and all
had biologically related children. In their assumptions that parents care more than non-parents
about children’s future, the participants were naturalising adult–child connections of care. A
queer reading uncovers how normative heterosexuality can have a structuring effect (Gaard
1997). Participants’ essentialising of adult–child relations devalues the concern of non-parents
who may feel compassion and take action on behalf of children and their future. Edelman (2004) critiques reproductive logic in contemplating the future, arguing that procreative norms lend parents a
moral position to project the actions of today into the future, “through concern for and imaginaries
of their descendants’ lives” (Rosen and Suissa 2020, 127). For Edelman, the future represented by the
“perpetual horizon” of the child pervades cultural politics as a “structuring optimism” (2–4),
suggesting a special power of parents. Such structuring casts aside the possibility of alternative communal relations (Edelman 2004).
Supporting Phoenix et al.’s (2017) empirical work, participants in this sample distanced themselves from stereotyped environmentalists, often referring to them pejoratively as “hippies”. By constructing moral boundaries around their own “normal parent” identity, participants protected
themselves from stigma and criticism of the daily environmental transgressions of family practices
(Phoenix et al. 2017), but in turn, bridged the public – political worlds by constructing a moderate
and “safe” identity to which politicians could relate. Participants’ narratives of parental symbolic
power chimes with the recent ascendancy of the parent voice in UK politics (Jensen 2018), and
builds on environmental advocacy in the US that has successfully leveraged parenthood as a narrative persuasion technique (Munro 2017). In the UK, family as political rhetoric aligns with conservative ideologies of stability, tradition and continuity (Little and Winch 2017). Within this logic, by
representing the concerned parent in their constituency, MPs of all parties can fit in better with
the social and institutional norms of Westminster than representing more radical constituent identities (Willis 2020). The UK Conservative party, having held a majority in government since 2017, has
an uncomfortable relationship with climate change policy. Notwithstanding the current Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s disdain for environmental protesters (Laville and Taylor 2019), the party has not
acted on the scientific recommendations which urge a rapid decarbonisation of the economy. This
regime, termed “new denialism” (Buranyi 2019; Daub et al., 2021) acknowledges fossil fuel’s role in
global heating while taking no meaningful action that is commensurate with the urgency. Against
this political context, I suggest that activists are seeking new ways to connect to government that
are akin to Lorenzen et al.’s (2016) study of US environmentalists’ deployment of moderate identities
to cut through to Republican legislators. However, as parents foreground their identity as they
engage with MPs and other levers of power, the codifying of reproductive morality could entrench
a moral narrative of naturalised adult–child relations.
When asked about the involvement of their extended family in fighting climate change, many
participants “drew a line” effectively excusing the non-participation of older relatives, particularly
their own parents. The logic of relatives not knowing the impact of past practices indicates that
some participants were basing responsibility for the future on the knowledge of causality of one’s
12
L. HOWARD ET AL.
actions. This led them to a logic of blamelessness and, therefore, lack of responsibility (Adam and
Groves 2007). This reflects common understandings of responsibility “being rooted in causal authorship of harm” (Adam and Groves 2007, 144), which has implications for who parent activists think
should be taking action to push for political and social change. Boundaries were drawn around
older people by defining their participation only in terms of consumption; civic engagement of
older relatives was not mentioned, suggesting that it is considered an unsuitable realm for older
people. Assumptions about older people as set in their ways, being unreceptive to new ideas and
unable to cope with the demands of activism might be seen as a form of ageism and generationalism, an undesirable outcome as it can damaging community social integration and reinforce the
marginalisation of older people (Scharf et al. 2001; Little and Winch 2017; Farber 2020). The exclusion
of older people from political citizenship mirrors the marginalisation children have experienced in
this realm (Nolas, Varvantakis, and Aruldoss 2017).
There is a further issue with the framing of how older relatives engage (or not) with issues of
climate justice. Using a lens of consumption to bracket off older relatives from taking action
could be limiting. If climate campaigners ignore older people in their aims to grow the political
movement, they are missing the chance to persuade a large politically engaged cohort of people
in the UK; 1 in 5 people in the UK were over the age of 65 in 2018, with 74% turning out to vote
at the 2019 general election (ONS 2019). But considering that 64% of this cohort voted Conservative
compared to the 27% and 36% of 25–34 and 35–44 age cohorts, respectively (Ipsos MORI 2021), campaigners’ efforts to push for a more progressive politics for change towards climate justice might be
a challenge. With an ageing population, the risks of an increasing conservatism and anti-youth sentiment mean that politicisation of older people to engage in social justice is becoming increasingly
important (Guillemot and Price 2017). Families have an important part to play in this regard, as a
politicising institution they can transmit knowledge, behaviours and skills (Guillemot and Price
2017). Empirical studies have shown that older people can be politicised for the first time in later
life, debunking assumptions of their frailty (Guillemot and Price 2017). Other work has found that
environmental activism in older age groups enabled an intergenerational community cohesion
and provided older people a new sense of meaning in a post-work life (Gearey and Ravenscroft
2019). Moreover, dealing with the threat of climate change will require a greater number of
people to engage civically and politically, and older people have been deemed an underutilised
resource to benefit national mitigation efforts and contribute to community resilience (Cohen
et al. 2016; Pillemer et al. 2021).
The research found that drawing moral boundaries around the emotional spaces of activism and
parenting was often flexible, highlighting a compatibility between practices of intimacy and the
interests of community (Jamieson 2005). Activists showed in their willingness to share emotionally
intimate encounters with other activists, enabling them to circulate meaning and build a common
identity and sense of solidarity. In particular, the fathers’ transforming of norms of invulnerable and
tough maleness into a connection with one’s inner emotional self that is expressed publicly and politically in relational, embodied displays of caring, and in demands for justice for environment and
children suggests ecological masculinity that confronts and re-draws the borders of mainstream
hegemonic masculine norms (Pulé 2013; Hultman and Pulé 2018). This boundary-reconfiguring
was also found in Marc’s reflexive refusal to align with masculine dominant business norms by
taking a caring and non-hierarchical approach in interactions with his team, and in the various
ways that fathers were socialising their children to be sensitive to gender and racial oppression.
Caring for the local and global commons has long been associated with feminine and maternal
traits (Macgregor and Seymour 2017), but research is beginning to uncover sites where men are
interrogating and challenging their personal role in reproducing intersecting gender and ecological
inequalities and through this process, reconstructing their gendered self (Connell 1990; Twine 2018;
Hedenqvist et al. 2021). In the examples of compassionate masculinities in this study, fathers were
drawing on, and recirculating learned eco-activist vocabulary and codes of care for others, connections between self and all life on Earth, and non-violent protest, and enacting these within their
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
13
personal, family and work lives. Notwithstanding the occasional contradictions of a plurality of masculinities in this sample of activist fathers (Connell 2017), such pathways of reflexive ecologisation
may nonetheless be valuable as part of a feminist agenda to confront the socially constructed
boundaries of “malestream” norms (Hultman and Pulé 2018).
The research found that boundaries were also fluid to protect relationships with other relatives,
such as siblings who did not share political views. Relatives’ transgressions of environmentalist consumption codes were granted to prevent moments of awkwardness and to maintain intimacy. This
demonstrates that morality is entangled and intersubjectively constituted within the specific
moments of everyday family life (Holdsworth and Morgan 2007), alongside being influenced by
wider cultural and normative discourses (Finch 1989).
Conclusion
This paper has explored the under studied emergence of parent-led intergenerational justice activism in the UK, by examining the emotional spaces and cultural context of parents politicising
their concern for their children’s future. In so doing, it aimed to consider how parent activism
might recreate a moral narrative about children’s climate-challenged future and shift political and
public conversation. Parent activism plays an important role in advocating for children’s and
future generations’ interests. A parental ethic to re-frame intergenerational justice ushers in a
much needed input to a conversation that has hitherto been encumbered by the ideas of generational conflicts of interest (Barry 1997) and the abstractness, and non-identifiability of future generations. The study therefore contributes to debates about the role of an ethic of care within the public
realm (Tronto 1994). Supporting the research of Howell (2013), this study has shown that the issue of
social justice can be as important as “nature” or “the environment” in motivating some people to act
on climate change. It also demonstrates how the boundaries of commonly understood environmentalism may be stretched to more holistically engage with climate change. The study supports work by
Shirani and her colleagues (2013) on the role of children as living links to the future that shape
parents’ views and actions on sustainability. New insights have been provided into the role of
fathers’ environmental activism, which warrants further research to connect ecological forms of masculinity to family and environmental issues (Hultman and Pulé 2018).
The research also showed that the symbolic moral boundary work of parents within the
emotional spaces of activism and parenting may limit the movement’s ability to advance a
social justice rhetoric. Identity-driven activism facilitates a collective agency, which is enacted
within bounded moral spaces that define the collective as right and good (Cerulo 1997;
Lamont and Molnar 2002). However, because identity-based movements form relative to distinctions, movements may struggle to bridge to social actors beyond their identity boundary (Piore
1995) – in this case, to adults without children. When we consider that policy changes that reorient priorities to future generations will require a broad and diverse public support brought about
by cultural change, there are implications for the reach of the moral parent discourses found in
this study to broaden intergenerational solidarity. Additionally, identity meanings are circulated
within, and reinforced by, the everyday relations and social practices of family. Participants drew
relational moral boundaries that are a function of entwined moral discourses of good parenting
and environmentalism, with the predominant narrative being that protecting children’s future is a
matter for parents. The study found this could exclude and marginalise the participation of
younger children and older adult relatives, which presents issues of social justice for these
groups to participate in public conversations and political decision-making on intergenerational
fairness.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
14
L. HOWARD ET AL.
Funding
This project was funded by an ESRC [doctoral scholarship].
ORCID
Rachel Howell
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0932-6491
References
Adam, B., and C. Groves. 2007. Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics. Brill: Leiden.
Barr, S., and A. Gilg. 2006. “Sustainable Lifestyles: Framing Environmental Action in and Around the Home.” Geoforum;
Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 37: 906–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.05.002.
Barry, B. 1997. “Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice.” Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 89: 43–64.
Bartlett, R., and C. Milligan. 2015. Engaging with Diary Techniques. In What is Diary Method? (Issue December).
Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472572578.ch-002.
Boddy, J., Phoenix, A., Walker, C., Vennam, U., Austerberry, H., & Latha, M. (2016). Telling “Moral Tales”? Family Narratives
of Responsible Privilege and Environmental Concern in India and the UK. Families, Relationships and Societies, 5(3),
357–374. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674316×14758399286843
Brookfield, T. 2012. Cold War Comforts Canadian Women, Child Safety, and Global Insecurity. Waterloo, Ont: Wilfrid Laurier
University Press.
Brown, K. R. 2009. “The Social Dynamics and Durability of Moral Boundaries.” Sociological Forum 24 (4): 854–876.
Buranyi, S. 2019. There’s a New “climate denialism” Out There. Conservatives Are Very Good At It. The Guardian (Online).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/28/boris-johnson-climate-crisis-denying-channel-4-debate
%0A%0A.
Cassidy, C., and J. M. Lone. 2020. “Thinking About Childhood: Being and Becoming in the World.” Analytical Teaching and
Philosophical Praxis 40 (1): 16–26.
Cerulo, K. A. 1997. “Identity Construction: New Issues, New Directions.” Annual Review of Sociology 23 (1): 385–409.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.385.
Chan, J., and J. Curnow. 2017. “Taking Up Space : Men, Masculinity, and the Student Climate Movement.” In Men and
Nature : Hegemonic Masculinities and Environmental Change, edited by S. MacGregor, and N. Seymour, 77–84. RCC
Perspectives 4.
Cohen, O., D. Geva, M. Lahad, A. Bolotin, and D. Leykin. 2016, February. “Community Resilience throughout the Lifespan
– The Potential Contribution of Healthy Elders.” PloS One, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148125.
Connell, R. W. 1990. “A Whole New World: Remaking Masculinity in the Context of the Environmental Movement.”
Gender and Society 4 (4): 452–478.
Connell, R. 2017. “Masculinities in the Sociocene.” In Men and Nature: Hegemonic Masculinities and Environmental
Change, edited by S. MacGregor, and N. Seymour, 5–7. RCC Perspectives 4.
Conradsen, S. 2016. “Activist Mothering.” In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, edited by N.
Naples, 1–2. Singapore: Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Daub, S., G. Blue, L. Rajewicz, and Z. Yunker. 2021. “Episodes in the new Climate Denialism.” In Regime of Obstruction: How
Corporate Power Blocks Energy Democracy, edited by W. Carroll. Chapter 8. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Davies, K., Tabucanon GM, and Box P. 2016. “Children, Climate Change and the Intergenerational Right to a Viable
Future.” In Geographies of Global Issues: Change and Threat, 401–421. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-981-4585-54-5.
Dow, K. 2016. Making a Good Life : An Ethnography of Nature, Ethics, and Reproduction. Woodstock: Princeton University
Press.
Dunlop, L., L. Atkinson, M. T. Diepen, L. Dunlop, L. Atkinson, and M. T. Diepen. 2021. “’It‘s our Future’. Youth and Fracking
Justice in England.” Local Environment 26 (1): 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1867837.
Edelman, L. 2004. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. Durham: Duke University Press.
Eliasoph, N., and P. Lichterman. 2003. “Culture in Interaction.” American Journal of Sociology 108 (4): 735–794.
Farber, D. 2020. “Climate Perspectives Across the Generations.” Natural Resources 60: 2.
Finch, J. 1989. Family Obligations and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gaard, G. 1997. “Toward a queer ecofeminism.” New Perspectives on Environmental Justice: Gender, Sexuality, and
Activism 12 (1): 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1997.tb00174.x.
Gearey, M., and N. Ravenscroft. 2019. “The Nowtopia of the Riverbank : Elder Environmental Activism.” Nature and Space
2 (3): 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619843733.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Graham, H., and S. de Bell. 2020. “The Representation of Future Generations in Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change :
A Study of the UK Press.” Children & Society 00 (June): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12411.
LOCAL ENVIRONMENT
15
Guillemot, J. R., and D. J. Price. 2017. “Politicisation in Later Life : Experience and Motivations of Older People
Participating in a Protest for the First Time.” Contemporary Social Science 12: 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21582041.2017.1326620.
Hargreaves, T. 2011. Engaging Goffman on Pro-environmental Behaviour Change. CSERGE Working Paper, 1, 20. www.
cserge.ac.uk.
Hedenqvist, R., P. Pulé, V. Vetterfalk, and M. Hultman. 2021. “When Gender Equality and Earth Care Meet: Ecological
Masculinities in Practice.” In Gender, Intersectionality and Climate Institutions in Industrialised States. 1, edited by G.
L. Magnusdottir, and A. Kronsell, 207–225. Web: Routledge.
Held, V. 1995. “The Meshing of Care and Justice.” Hypatia 10 (2): 128–132.
Hill, M., and K. Tisdall. 1997. Children and Society. London and New York: Routledge.
Hitlin, S., and S. Vaisey. 2010. Handbook of the Sociology of Morality. New York: Springer.
Holdsworth, C., and D. Morgan. 2007. “Revisiting the Generalized Other: An Exploration.” Sociolgy 41 (3): 401–417.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038507076614.
Howell, R. 2013. “It’s Not (Just) “the Environment, Stupid!” Values, Motivations, and Routes to Engagement of People
Adopting Lower-Carbon Lifestyles.” Global Environmental Change 23 (1): 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2012.10.015.
Howell, R. A., and S. Allen. 2019. “Significant Life Experiences, Motivations and Values of Climate Change Educators.”
Environmental Education Research 25 (6): 813–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1158242.
Hultman, M., and P. M. Pulé. 2018. Ecological Masculinities: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Guidance. Oxon and
New York: Routledge.
Ipsos MORI. 2021. How Britain Voted in the 2019 Election. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted2019-election.
Istead, L., and B. Shapiro. 2014. “Recognizing the Child as Knowledgeable Other: Intergenerational Learning Research to
Consider Child-to-Adult Influence on Parent and Family Eco-knowledge.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education
28 (1): 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2013.851751.
Jamieson, L. 2005. “Boundaries of Intimacy.” In Families in Society: Boundaries and Relationships, edited by L McKie, S
Cunningham-Burley, and J Campling (Consultant Editor), 189–206. Bristol: Policy Press & Centre for Research on
Families & Relationships.
Jamieson, L. 2016. “Families, Relationships and “Environment”: (Un)Sustainability, Climate Change and Biodiversity
Loss.” Families, Relationships and Societies 5 (3): 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674316×14758387773007.
Jensen, T. 2018. Parenting the Crisis: The Cultural Politics of Parent-Blame. Bristol: Policy Press.
Jones, N., M. O’Brien, and T. Ryan. 2018. “Representation of Future Generations in United Kingdom Policy-Making.”
Futures 102 (December 2017): 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.01.007.
Katz, S. 2017. “Welfare Mothers’ Grassroots Activism for Economic Justice.” Contemporary Social Science 12 (1): 2. https://
doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2017.1335879.
Kraftl, P. 2008. “Young People, Hope, and Childhood-Hope.” Space and Culture 11 (2): 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1206331208315930.
Lamont, M. 1992. Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-Middle Class. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Lamont, M., and V. Molnar. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167–195.
Lappé, M., R. J. Hein, and H. Landecker. 2019. “Environmental Politics of Reproduction.” Annual Review of Anthropology
48: 133–150.
Laville, S., and M. Taylor. 2019, November 17. Scientists and Climate Advisers Condemn Tory Environmental Record. The
Guardian
(Online).
ttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/17/scientists-and-climate-adviserscondemn-tory-environmental-record.
Little, B., and A. Winch. 2017. “Generation: The Politics of Patriarchy and Social Change.” Soundings 66 (66): 129–144.
https://doi.org/10.3898/136266217821733679.
Lorenzen, J. A., E. Gill, and M. Andreoni. 2016. “Turning Out the Grassroots: Refining Public Feedback in Environmental
Policy Making.” Humanity & Society 40 (4): 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160597616669756.
Macgregor, S., and N. Seymour. 2017. “Introduction.” In Men and Nature: Hegemonic Masculinities and Environmental
Change. RCC Perspectives 4. 9-14. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.5282/rcc/7977.
Martiskainen, M., S. Axon, B. K. Sovacool, S. Sareen, D. Furszyfer Del Rio, and K. & Axon. 2020. “Contextualizing Climate
Justice Activism: Knowledge, Emotions, Motivations, and Actions among Climate Strikers in six Cities.” Global
Environmental Change 65 (September): 102180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102180.
McCarthy, J., R. Edwards, and V. Gillies. 2003. Making Families: Moral Tales of Parenting and Step-Parenting. Durham:
Sociology Press.
McEwan, C., and M. K. Goodman. 2010. “Place Geography and the Ethics of Care : Introductory Remarks on the
Geographies of Ethics, Responsibility and Care.” Ethics, Place and Environment 13 (2): 103–112. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13668791003778602
Munro, K. 2017. “Hegemonic Stories in Environmental Advocacy Testimonials.” Energy Research and Social Science 31
(June): 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.038.
16
L. HOWARD ET AL.
Murtaugh, P. A., and M. G. Schlax. 2009. “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals.” Global Environmental
Change 19: 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007.
Naples, N. 1988. Grassroots Warriors: Activist Mothering, Community Work, and the War on Poverty. New York: Routledge.
Nguyen, J. 2020. Intergenerational Justice and the Paris Agreement. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2020/
05/11/intergenerational-justice-and-the-paris-agreement/.
Nolas, S., C. Varvantakis, and V. Aruldoss. 2017. “Political Activism Across the Life Course.” Contemporary Social Science 12
(1–2): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2017.1336566.
ONS. 2019. Office for National Statistics: Overview of the UK Population: August 2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/
peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/articles/
overviewoftheukpopulation/august2019.
Pachucki, M. A., S. Pendergrass, and M. Lamont. 2007. “Boundary Processes : Recent Theoretical Developments and new
Contributions.” Poetics 35: 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2007.10.001.
Page, E. 1999. “Intergenerational Justice and Climate Change.” Political Studies 47 (1): 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9248.00187.
Panitch, M. 2012. Disability, Mothers, and Organization: Accidental Activists. New York: Routledge.
Payne, P. G. 2010. “Moral Spaces, the Struggle for an Intergenerational Environmental Ethics and the Social Ecology of
Families: An ’Other’ Form of Environmental Education.” Environmental Education Research 16 (2): 209–231. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13504620903580545.
Phoenix, A. N. N., J. Boddy, C. Walker, and U. M. A. Vennam. 2017. Environment in the Lives of Children and Families. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Pillemer, K., D. Ph, M. T. Cope, and J. Nolte. 2021. Older People and Action on Climate Change : A Powerful But Underutilized
Resource (Issue January).
Piore, M. 1995. Beyond Individualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Poggio, B. 2006. “Outline of a Theory of Gender Practices.” Gender Work and Organization 13 (3): 225.
Pulé, P. M. 2013. A Declaration of Caring : Towards Ecological Masculinism. Murdoch University, WA, Australia.
Qvortrup, J. 1994. “Childhood Matters: An Introduction.” In Childhood Matters: Social Theory, Practice and Politics, edited
by H. W. J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, and G. B. Sgritta. Aldershot: Avebury.
Rosen, R., and J. Suissa. 2020. “Children, Parents and non-Parents: to Whom Does ‘the Future’ Belong?” Families,
Relationships and Societies 9 (1): 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674319X15645386453149.
Sanson, A. V., S. E. L. Burke, and J. Van Hoorn. 2018. “Climate Change: Implications for Parents and Parenting.” Parenting
18 (3): 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295192.2018.1465307.
Sasser, J. 2018. On Infertile Ground: Population Control and Women’s Rights in the Era of Climate Change. New York: NYU
Press.
Scharf, T., C. Phillipson, P. Kingston, and A. E. Smith. 2001. “Social Exclusion and Older People : Exploring the
Connections.” Education and Ageing 16: 3.
Sevenhuijsen, S. 1998. In Citizenship and the Ethics of Care Feminist Considerations on Justice, Morality, and Politics, 36–70.
London: Routledge.
Shirani, F., C. Butler, K. Henwood, K. Parkhill, and N. Pidgeon. 2013. “Disconnected Futures: Exploring Notions of Ethical
Responsibility in Energy Practices.” Local Environment 18 (4): 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.779236.
Stephens, S. 1996. “Reflections on Environmental Justice : Children as Victims and Actors.” Social Justice 23 (4): 62–86.
Stets, J. E., and M. J. Carter. 2012. “A Theory of the Self for the Sociology of Morality.” American Sociological Review 77 (1):
120–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411433762.
Tronto, J. 1994. Moral Boundaries: a political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.
Twine, R. 2018. “Materially Constituting a Sustainable Food Transition: The Case of Vegan Eating Practice.” Sociology 52
(1): 166–118.
Uzzell, D., J. Davallon, B. Jensen, H. Gottesdiener, P. Fontes, J. Kofoed, and C. Vognsen. 1994. Children as Catalysts of
Environmental Change. Report to DGXII/D-5 Research on Economic and Social Aspects of the Environment (SEER).
Walker, C. 2017. “Embodying ‘the Next Generation’: Children‘s Everyday Environmental Activism in India and England
Environmental Activism in India and England.” Contemporary Social Science 12 (1–2): 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21582041.2017.1325922.
Weed, F. 1993. “The MADD Queen: Charisma and the Founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.” Leadership Quarterly 4:
329–334.
Wilkinson, E. 2020. “Never After? Queer Temporalities and the Politics of non-Reproduction.” Gender, Place & Culture 27
(5): 660–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2019.1598941.
Willis, R. 2020. Dual Realities : Living with the Climate Crisis. In Too Hot to Handle?: The Democratic Challenge of Climate
Change. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Wynes, S., and K. Nicholas. 2017. “Comment on The Climate Mitigation gap: Education and Government
Recommendations Miss the Most Effective Individual Actions.” Environmental Research Letters 12, https://doi.org/
10.1088/1748-9326/aab213.