Abstract
In the social scientific literature, few attempts have been made to understand a more nuanced relationship between men, the masculine, and nature. In fact, few social scientific studies explore how men perceive their relationship to the physical environment and how the environment can help shape and define masculinity. The studies that do exist explicitly detail the nature of men who self-define their masculinity by the type of outdoor activities, behaviours, and work they perform. This chapter argues a need to understand the relationships between men and the physical environment in the aftermath of disasters. A new, more nuanced understanding is proposed of traditional masculine gender roles, which has historically viewed men as exploiters and extractors. Our objective is to examine masculinity’s contribution to understanding how men relate to and understand their physical environment in the aftermath of disaster. Moreover, in what ways does masculinity contribute to an understanding of how men relate to the environment—beyond the role of an extractor and as a protector, defender, and caretaker of the environment, in order to promote more relational, caring ecological masculinities (Hultman & Pulé, 2018). We argue that ecological masculinities will foster increased care and resilience among men and communities when rebuilding local through to global livelihoods after a disaster. Using disasters along the Gulf Coast of the U.S. as case studies to draw conclusions regarding the dual nuanced nature of humanity and the environment, this chapter argues for the inclusion of an ecomasculine perspective in disaster studies. The chapter concludes by exploring how ecomasculinity is well-suited to increase vulnerabilities to catastrophic events among men and within social organisations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Gender-focused research and reports across the world provide strong evidence that women and men are affected differently by natural disaster (Alston, 2011; Ciampi, Gell, Lasap, & Tuirril, 2011; Dhungel & Ohja, 2012; Enarson, 2012; Enarson & Meyreles, 2004; Eriksen, Gill, & Head, 2010; Hazeleger, 2013; Morrow & Phillips, 1999; O’Gorman & Clifton-Everest, 2009; Pincha, 2008; Yonder, Akcar, & Gopalan, 2005).
- 2.
Warren’s work is critical of this essentialist view.
- 3.
However, it is important to note: “To date, ecofeminist theory has blossomed, exploring the connections among many issues: racism, environmental degradation, economics, electoral politics, animal liberation, reproductive politics, biotechnology, bioregionalism, spirituality, holistic health practices, sustainable agriculture, and others. Ecofeminist activists have worked in the environmental justice movement, the Green movement, the anti-toxics movement, the women’s spirituality movement, the animal liberation movement, the movement for economic justice, and queer theory” (Gaard, 1997, p. 2).
- 4.
Ecofeminism refers to both a movement and a philosophical way of knowing and understanding the connection between women and nature (MacGregor, 2006). Also, ecofeminism’s philosophical roots draws parallels between man’s domination over nature and man’s exploitation and domination of women, Ecofeminists believe that this connection is illustrated through the traditionally “female” values of reciprocity, nurturing, and cooperation, which are present both among women and in nature (Biehl, 1991; Ruether, Eaton, & Lorentzen, 2003; Shiva, 1988).
- 5.
Messner (2000) contends that mythopoets view the structure modern industrial society as a “straitjacket of rationality,” that blunts the emotional communion and collective spiritual transcendence and closeness of men that tribal man typically experienced long ago. As such, the MMM sought to restore the “deep masculine” in men who had lost it in their more modern lifestyles. While the MMM has been widely criticised for de-politicising and reinforcing gender inequalities and essentialisms (Enns, 1994; Hagan, 1992; Kimmel & Kaufman, 1993; Messner, 1993; Walters, 1993), it warrants mentioning because of its desire to reconnect men with their social and natural environment. However, it does notably differ from ecofeminism in that it is considered a men’s movement that was more focused on the restoring the balance of masculine and feminine roles among men and women and reaching a “deeper,” more authentic, and “mature” manhood. In their critical analysis of the early intents of the MMM, Hultman and Pulé (2018, p. 81) noted that one of the movement’s founders, Shepherd Bliss,
did not blame men for the world’s woes. Steering away from condemning masculinities in an interview with Bert Hoff, Bliss essentialised his vision for a healthier and kinder masculinity by claiming that the: ‘historic male role of the Protector, which when taken in excess could be a problem, is a positive image. The Protector, the Husbandman. The men who till the Earth, take care of the Earth, not as nurturers but as generators. There’s that regenerating quality. I make a distinction between the nurturing that women do and generating that men do’. (Hoff & Bliss, 1995)
- 6.
In this context, care for the environment, as stated by Hultman and Pulé (2018, p. 30), “care is a great motivator, driving us to act selflessly, at times beyond the limits of rational thinking; after all, through care we become selfless. Care motivates us to support others generously, to be of service to what we consider is righteous and good. Care is present in all human beings in one way or another and may well have been instrumental in the survival of our species given the evolutionary benefits of cooperation. However, our socialisations have a direct impact on the ways we manifest care in our daily lives. Care can be an ethical obligation or a practical labor. Care is both an internal and external phenomenon. In this sense, care governs when and how we look after the world around us as well as ourselves.”
- 7.
Technological disasters occur when technological failure, such as a mechanical part, or humans misuse of technology results in technology. This is in contrast to a natural disaster, where the disaster is viewed as an “act of God” and unavoidable such as an earthquake.
References
4O.C.E.A.N. (2019). 4O.C.E.A.N. Retrieved from https://4ocean.com/.
Agarwal, B. (1992). The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies,18(1), 119–159.
Alston, M. (2011). Understanding Gender and Climate Change in the Pacific. Melbourne, Australia: UNESCO and Monash University.
Arora-Jonsson, S. (2013). Gender, Development and Environmental Governance: Theorizing Connections (Vol. 33). New York, NY: Routledge.
Austin, D. W. (2008). Hyper-masculinity and disaster: Gender role construction in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
Australian Government Department of Health. (2010). National male health policy supporting document: Key determinants and key actions supporting male health. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/male-policy.
Beasley, C. (2008). Rethinking hegemonic masculinity in a globalizing world. Men and Masculinities,11(1), 86–103.
Biehl, J. (1991). Rethinking Eco-Feminist Politics. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Bly, R. (1990). Iron John. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Bowman, P. (1990). Coping with provider role strain: Adaptive cultural resources among black husband-fathers. Journal of Black Psychology,16, 1–21.
Brandth, B. (1995). Rural masculinity in transition gender images in tractor advertisements. Journal of Rural Studies,11, 123–133.
Brannon, R. (1976). Looking at the Male Role. Psyccritiques,21, 795–796.
Brock, R. L., & Lawrence, E. (2008). A longitudinal investigation of stress spillover in marriage: Does spousal support adequacy buffer the effects. Journal of Family Psychology,22, 11–20.
Buckingham, S. (2010). Call in the women. Nature,468(7323), 502–502.
Burk, L. R., Burkhart, B. R., & Sikorski, J. F. (2004). Construction and preliminary validation of the auburn differential masculinity index. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,5, 4–17.
Campbell, H., & Bell, M. (2000). The question of rural masculinities. Rural Sociology,65(4), 532–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00042.x
Caputi, J., & MacKenzie, G. O. (1992). Pumping Iron John. In K. L. Hagen (Ed.), Women Respond to the Men’s Movement: A Feminist Collection (pp. 69–82). San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Ciampi, M. C., Gell, F., Lasap, L., & Tuirril, E. (2011). Gender and Disaster Risk Reduction: A Training Pack. Cowley, England: Oxfam.
Cloke, P., & Perkins, H. (1998). Representations of adventure tourism in New Zealand. Environment and Planning: Society and Space,16, 185–218.
Connell, R. (1990). A whole new world: Remaking masculinity in the context of the environmental movement. Gender and Society,4(4), 452–478.
Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Connell, R. (2017). Foreword: Masculinities in the sociocene. In S. MacGregor & N. Seymour (Eds.), Men and Nature: Hegemonic Masculinities and Environmental Change (pp. 5–8). Munich: RCC Perspectives.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society,19(6), 829–859.
Corprew, C. S., Matthews, J., & Mitchell, A. (2014). Men at the crossroads: A profile analysis of hypermasculinity in emerging adulthood. Journal of Men’s Studies,22, 105–121.
Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2003). Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly,84, 242–261.
Cutter, S. L., Emrich, C. T., Mitchell, J. T., Boruf, B. J., Gall, M., Schmidtlein, M. C., Burton, C. G. & Melton, G. (2006). The long road home: Race, class, and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. Environment, 48, 8–20.
Cutter, S. L., & Finch, C. (2008). Temporal and spatial changes in social vulnerability to natural hazards. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences,105, 2301–2306.
David, D. S., & Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint of manhood, and what it’s done for us lately. In D. David & R. Brannon (Eds.), The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role (pp. 1–48). New York, NY: Random House.
Dhungel, R., & Ojha, R. N. (2012). Women’s empowerment for disaster risk reduction and emergency response in Nepal. Gender and Development,20(2), 309–321.
Enarson, E. (2000). Gender issues in natural disasters; talking points and research needs. Paper presented at the ILO InFocus Programme on Crisis Response and Reconstruction Workshop, Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.gdnonline.org.
Enarson, E. (2009a). Women, gender and disaster men and masculinities. Gender Note #2. Retrieved from Gender and Disaster Network. Retrieved from http://www.gdnonline.org/resources/GDN_GenderNote3_Men&Masculinities.pdf.
Enarson, E. (2009b). Women, gender and disaster: Men and masculinities. Gender Note #3. Retrieved from http://www.gdnonline.org/resources/GDN_GenderNote3_Men&Masculinities.pdf.
Enarson, E. (2012). Women Confronting Natural Disaster: From Vulnerability to Resilience. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner.
Enarson, E., & Meyreles, L. (2004). International perspectives on gender and disaster: Differences and possibilities. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,24(10), 49–93.
Enarson, E., & Morrow, B. H. (1998). Why gender? Why women? An introduction to women and disaster. In E. Enarson & B. Morrow (Eds.), The Gendered Terrain of Disaster: Through Women’s Eyes (pp. 1–8). London, England: Praeger.
Enarson, E., & Pease, B. (Eds.). (2018). Men, Masculinities and Disaster. New York, NY: Routledge.
Enns, C. Z. (1994). Archetypes and gender: Goddesses, warriors, and psychological health. Journal of Counseling & Development,73, 127–133.
Eriksen, C., Gill, N., & Head, L. (2010). The gendered dimensions of bushfire in changing rural landscapes in Australia. Journal of Rural Studies,26, 332–342.
Faludi, S. (2000). Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Gaard, G. (1997). Toward a queer ecofeminism. Hypatia,12(1), 114–137.
Gaard, G. (2014). Towards new ecomasculinities, ecogenders, and ecosexualities. In C. J. Adams & L. Gruen (Eds.), Ecofeminism: Feminist Intersections with Other Animals and the Earth (pp. 225–239). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Goldman, L., & Young, H. (2015). Managing Natural Resources for Livelihoods: Helping Post-Conflict Communities Survive and Thrive (No. 10). Washington, DC: The Environmental Law Institute (ELI). Retrieved from https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/policy_briefs/policy_brief_10.pdf.
Gremillion, H. (2011). Feminism and the mythopoetic men’s movement: Some shared concepts of gender. Women’s Studies Journal,25, 43–55.
Hagan, K. L. (Ed.). (1992). Women Respond to the Men’s Movement: A Feminist Collection. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.
Hazeleger, T. (2013). Gender and disaster recovery: Strategic issues and action in Australia. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28 (2). Retrieved from https://ajem.infoservices.com.au/items/AJEM-28-02-12.
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory,5(1), 49–72.
Heller, C. (1999). Ecology of Everyday Life: Rethinking the Desire for Nature. Montreal, Canada: Black Rose Books.
Hochschild, A. (2016). Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York, NY: New Press.
Hoff, B., & Bliss, S. (1995). Interview with Shepherd Bliss. M.E.N. Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.menweb.org/blissiv.htm.
Hultman, M. (2013). The making of an environmental hero: A history of ecomodern masculinity, fuel cells and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Environmental Humanities,2(1), 79–99.
Hultman, M. (2015). Den inställda omställningen: svensk energi-och miljöpolitik i möjligheternas tid 1980–1991. Möklinta, Sweden: Gidlunds.
Hultman, M. (2017). Conceptualising industrial, ecomodern and ecological masculinities. In S. Buckingham & V. le Masson (Eds.), Understanding Climate Change Through Gender Relations (pp. 87–103). Oxon, England: Routledge.
Hultman, M., & Anshelm, J. (2017). Masculinities of global climate change. In M. Cohen (Ed.), Climate Change and Gender in Rich Countries: Work, Public Policy and Action (pp. 19–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hultman, M., & Pulé, P. M. (2018). Ecological Masculinities: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Guidance. Oxon, England: Routledge.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (2005). Contextual influences on marriage: Implications for policy and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science,14, 171–174.
Kimmel, M. S., & Kaufman, M. (1993). The new men’s movement: Retreat and regression with American’s weekend warriors. Feminist Issues,13, 3–21.
King, Y. (1989). The ecology of feminism and the feminism of ecology. In J. Plant (Ed.), Healing the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism (pp. 18–28). Philadelphia, PA: New Society Press.
Kreps, D. (2010). Introducing eco-masculinities: How a masculine discursive subject approach to the Individual Differences Theory of Gender and IT Impacts an Environment Informatics Project. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 277.
Laska, S., & Morrow, B. H. (2006). Social vulnerabilities and Hurricane Katrina: An unnatural disaster in New Orleans. Marine Technology Society Journal,40, 16–26.
Laula, E. (2003 [1904]). Inför lif eller död?: sanningsord i de lappska förhållandena. Stockholm, Sweden: EOD.
Levant, R. F., & Majors, R. G. (1997). An investigation into variations in the construction of the male gender role among young African American and European American women and men. Journal of Gender, Culture, and Health,2, 33–43.
Levant, R., & Wong, Y. (2013). Race and gender as moderators of the relationship between the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology and alexithymia: An intersectional perspective. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(3), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029551.
Liepins, R. (2000). Making men: The construction and representation of agriculture-based masculinities in Australia and New Zealand. Rural Sociology,65, 605–620.
Little, J., & Panelli, R. (2003). Gender research in rural geography. Gender, Place and Culture,10, 281–289.
Lowe, S., Rhodes, J., & Scoglio, A. (2011). Changes in marital and partner relationships in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: An analysis of low-income women. Psychology of Women Quarterly,36, 286–300.
MacGregor, S. (2006). Beyond Mothering Earth: Ecological Citizenship and the Politics of Care. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.
MacGregor, S., & Seymour, N. (Eds.). (2017). Men and Nature: Hegemonic Masculinities and Environmental Change. 4 ed. RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society.
McDowell, L. M. (2004). Masculinity, identity and labour market change: Some reflections on the implications of thinking relationally about difference and the politics of inclusion. Geografiska Annaler Series B: Human Geography,86(1), 45–56.
Merchant, C. (1980). The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Messner, M. (1993). “Changing men” and feminist politics in the United States. Theory and Society,22, 723–737.
Messner, M. (2000). Essentialist retreat: The mythopoetic men’s movement and the Christian promise keepers. Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements (pp. 17–23). Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
Miller, D. S. (2006). The aesthetic value of landscapes and place orientation after a natural disaster. A paper presentation at the Pacific Sociological Association, Universal City, Los Angeles, CA.
Miller, D. S., & Rivera, J. D. (2008). Hurricane Katrina and the Redefinition of Landscape. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Morgan, D. H. J. (1992). Discovering Men. London: Routledge.
Morin, K., Longhurst, R., & Johnston, L. (2001). (Troubling) spaces of mountains and men: New Zealand’s Mount Cook and Hermitage Lodge. Social and Cultural Geography,2, 117–139.
Morrow, B. H., & Phillips, B. (1999). What’s gender “got to do with it”? International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters,17(1), 5–11.
Mosher, D. L., & Sirkin, M. (1984). Measuring the macho personality constellation. Journal of Research in Personality,18, 150–163.
Myers, C. A., Slack, T., & Singlemann, J. (2008). Social vulnerability and migration in the wake of disaster: The case of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Population and Environment,29, 271–291.
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. (2011). Deepwater: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling-Report to the President. Washington, DC: Featured Commission Publications.
Neumayer, E., & Plümper, T. (2007). The gendered nature of natural disasters: The impact of catastrophic events on the gender gap in life expectancy, 1981–2002. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,97(3), 551–566.
Nightingale, A. (2006). The nature of gender: Work, gender, and environment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,24(2), 165–185.
O’Gorman, E., & Clifton-Everest, I., (2009). Review of gender issues including strategies against gender based violence in humanitarian interventions. European Commission Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid. Retrieved from http://www.alnap.org/pool/files/gender-review-final.pdf.
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Picou, J. S., Gill, D. A., Dyer, C. L., & Curry, E. W. (1992). Stress and disruption in an Alaskan fishing community: Initial and continuing impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Industrial Crisis Quarterly,6, 235–257.
Picou, J. S., Marshall, B. K., & Gill, D. A. (2004). Disaster, litigation and the corrosive community. Social Forces,82, 1497–1526.
Pilkington, E. (2010, May 2). Deepwater horizon oil spill: Barack Obama flies in amid mounting criticism. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/02/deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-barack-obama.
Pincha, C. (2008). Gender sensitive disaster management: A toolkit for practitioners. Earthworm Books & Oxfam America. Retrieved from https://www.preventionweb.net/files/7792_GndersensitivedisastermanagementToolkit.pdf.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male roles: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex Roles,30, 481–501.
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London, England: Routledge.
Plumwood, V. (2002). Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pulé, P. M. (2013). A declaration of caring: Towards ecological masculinism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
Quarantelli, E. L. (1981). The command post point of view in local mass communication systems. Communications,7, 57–74.
Read, P. (1996). Returing to nothing: The meaning of lost places. New York Cambridge University Press.
Reuther, R. R. (1992). Patriarchy and the men’s movement: Part of the problem or part of the solution? In K. L. Hagen (Ed.), Women Respond to the Men’s Movement: A Feminist Collection (pp. 13–18). San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.
Rivera, J. D., Miller, D. S., & Gonzalez, C. (2012). The BP oil spill and the adherence to reductionist principles: Moving toward a precautionary tomorrow. International Journal of Emergency Management,8, 332–349.
Ruether, R., Eaton, H., & Lorentzen, L. (Eds.). (2003). Ecofeminism and Globalization. Lanham, England: Rowman and Littlefield.
Saito, Y. (1998). Appreciating nature on its own terms. Environmental Ethics,20, 135–149.
Sandelands, L. (2004). Man and nature in God. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Schrock, D., & Schwalbe, M. (2009). Men, masculinity, and manhood acts. Annual Review of Sociology,35, 277–295.
Seager, J. (1993). Earth Follies: Coming to Feminist Terms with the Global Environmental Crisis. New York, NY: Routledge.
Shiva, V. (1988). Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London, England: Zed Books.
Spencer, M. B. (2006). Phenomenology and ecological systems theory: Development of diverse groups. In R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (6th ed.): Vol. 1, Theoretical Models of Human Development (pp. 829–893). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wägner, E. (1941). Väckarklocka. Stockholm, Sweden: Bonniers.
Walters, M. (1993). The codependent Cinderella and Iron John. Family Therapy Networker,17, 60–65.
Warren, K. (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environmental Ethics,9(Spring), 3–20.
Warren, K. (Ed.). (1994). Ecological Feminism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Warren, K. (2000). Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters. London, England: Rowman & Littlefield.
Waste Advantage Magazine. (2019). 4ocean: Building the First Economy for Ocean Plastic. Waste Advantage Magazine. Retrieved from https://wasteadvantagemag.com/4ocean-building-the-first-economy-for-ocean-plastic/.
Weiss, C., Zara, C., & Parkinson, D. (2013). Men on Black Saturday. Goulburn, Australia: Women’s Health & Monash University. Retrieved from http://www.genderanddisaster.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Doc-011-Men-on-Black-Saturday-Vols-1-and-2.pdf.
Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology,9(3), 335–356.
Whitehead, S. (2002). Men and Masculinities: Key themes and new directions. Cambridge: Polity.
Woodward, R. (1998). “It’s a man’s life!”: Soldiers, masculinity and the countryside. Gender, Place and Culture,5, 277–300.
Wright, E. (1996). Torn Togas: The Dark Side of Greek Life. Minneapolis, MN: Fairview.
Yonder, A., Akcar, S., & Gopalan, P. (2005). Women’s Participation in Disaster Relief and Recovery. New York, NY: Seeds 22, Population Council.
Young, I. M. (2003). The logic of masculinist protection: Reflections on the current security state. Journal of Women in Culture and Society,29, 1–25.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Miller, D.S., Corprew, C. (2021). Ecomasculinity, Livelihood Security, Caring, and Resilience in the Aftermath of Disasters and Ecological Devastation. In: Pulé, P.M., Hultman, M. (eds) Men, Masculinities, and Earth. Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54486-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54486-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54485-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54486-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)