http://bst.sagepub.com/Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society

http://bst.sagepub.com/content/32/1/56The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0270467612444579

2012 32: 56Bulletin of Science Technology & SocietyAnna Davidson

Narratives of Menstrual Product Consumption: Convenience, Culture, or Commoditization?  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

National Association for Science, Technology & Society

can be found at:Bulletin of Science, Technology & SocietyAdditional services and information for    

  http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://bst.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://bst.sagepub.com/content/32/1/56.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jun 17, 2012Version of Record >>

by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from by Alejandra Ortega on October 23, 2013bst.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society32(1) 56 –70© 2012 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0270467612444579http://bsts.sagepub.com

Introduction

The most visible accounts of global environmental degra-dation have only recently included the role of consumption (Cohen, Brown, & Vergragt, 2010). Discourses about achieving sustainability have long followed a tale of good and evil where poverty is associated with overpopulation, pollution, and environmental destruction and wealth with progress, development, modernization, cleanliness, and efficiency. This story line is clearly reflected in documents such as Our Common Future (1987), where the onus was still on developing countries to reduce population and grow economically—ostensibly translating economic growth into green technology and environmental protection (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, chap. 2, p. 56). It appeared that all that was left for devel-oped countries to do was share technology, provide aid (Manno, 2010b), and “consume ever more as their contri-bution to uplifting the poor” (Korten, 1991, p. 265).

The turn toward sustainable consumption within scholar-ship in environmental sociology (Featherstone, 1983, as cited in Spaargaren, 2009, p. 318), ecological economics (see Ropke & Reisch, 2004), and increasingly within national and international policy making (see European Environmental Agency [EEA], 2010; Jackson, 2005; United Nations Departments for Environmental and Social Affairs, 2011) challenges this view by recognizing the links between increased wealth, consumption of resource-intensive goods and services, and outcomes such as biodiversity loss,

climate change, and chemical pollution (Rockström et al., 2009). It has increasingly been argued that we should foster sustainable consumption defined as

Use of services and related products which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollut-ants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations. (EEA, 2005)

The term consumption initially conjures up the image of eating; something is whole, then it is consumed and turned into waste. In order to maintain health, it is assumed that we need to maintain sustainable levels of consumption. However, the defi-nition given above shows, as argued by Wilk (2004), consump-tion related to environmental impacts is more complex.1 While “reducing consumption” might be a useful slogan, it belies the fact that consuming more durable products, more locally pro-duced, more unprocessed products might have lower

XXX10.1177/0270467612444579Bulletin of Science, Technology & SocietyDavidson

1State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:Anna Davidson, Department of Environmental Studies, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1 Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA Email: acdavids@syr.edu

Narratives of Menstrual Product Consumption: Convenience, Culture, or Commoditization?

Anna Davidson1

Abstract

The environmental and social costs of consumer societies have increasingly been recognized. Achieving sustainable household consumption requires an understanding of the underlying roots of current consumption levels. Using the case study of menstrual care practices, different theoretical frameworks—or narratives—for understanding household consumption are evaluated. The author argues that theories of consumption that focus on individual choice based on assessments of convenience or cleanliness, or only on cultural imperatives need to be expanded to take account of the wider political–economic context. Using commoditization theory helps explain not only why mass-produced, disposable menstrual products are dominant in free market societies but also why certain theories of consumption are more prevalent.

Keywords

consumption, overconsumption, commoditization, sustainability, disposable, waste, menstrual products, narrative

Davidson 57

environmental impacts than simply consuming less (p. 19). My definition of consumption in this article—the use of products and services—will attempt to maintain this complexity while focusing on a very specific part of household consumption: the environmental and social impacts relating to the use of differ-ent methods in the care of the menstruating body.

The choice of pads, tampons, menstrual cups, or the continuous use of hormonal contraceptives by those who menstruate2 seems at first to be a very private and almost banal choice. Surely, it is simply a matter of fulfilling indi-vidual needs of hygiene and convenience. However, my focus on menstruation aims precisely to take something seemingly so personal and everyday and to argue that the most convincing explanations of consumption are those that shift emphasis away from individual choice. Sociologists who have argued for analyses of consumption based on a social practices model (e.g., Shove, 2003; Spaargaren, 2009) have shown the effectiveness of moving away from analyzing why individuals choose certain prod-ucts toward seeing consumption embedded in social prac-tices and lifestyles. This allows us to see how certain practices—the use of personal vehicles or air-conditioning, for example—are governed by socially constructed con-cepts of normal. Focusing on menstruation allows me to start from the basic level of a bodily function and to peel back the layers of practices and technologies that manage, contain, collect, suppress, experience, or hide menstrua-tion. This focus allows me to view the different practices, material technologies (e.g., a disposable tampon or a reus-able pad), their environmental impacts and what these tell us about narratives of sustainable consumption.

I first outline a biophysical perspective on consumption related to menstruation—the use of a tampon and the envi-ronmental impacts associated with it. I then outline and jus-tify the need to move beyond only biophysical life cycle analyses toward social theories that attempt to understand consumption. I argue that these social theory narratives often parallel or intertwine with the everyday narratives that direct and justify practices of menstrual care.

In some respects, I use the term narrative in a way simi-lar to “discourse,” where discourse refers to a set of prac-tices and linguistic representations that structure and produce identities, social relations, and differing political outcomes (Gregory, Johnston, Pratt, Watts, & Whatmore, 2009, p. 166). However, the way I use “narrative” in this article refers to specific theories and practices rather than the more institutional level at which the term discourse is commonly applied. Furthermore, viewing the theories and practices as representing a narrative allows them to be ana-lyzed as one would a story-like narrative: the framing—what is and what is not included in the narrative, the chain of explanation, the values assumed, and the truths claimed. We are then ultimately in a better position to assess which explanatory narratives of (un)sustainable consumption we

choose to believe in, speak about, and live by. Using this framework, I evaluate three such narratives of consumption and the menstrual practices that are manifestations of these; what I call the behavioral narrative, the ecological modern-ization narrative, and the systemic critique.

The Menstrual Consumption Cycle: A Biophysical PerspectiveFollowing the environmental life cycle of a disposable tam-pon does not start at the point of sale and end when the tampon is “used up” and discarded. Instead, it follows the flows of material and energy right from raw materials through to waste that, sometimes only very briefly, flow through the consumer.

A rayon tampon with a polyester hull and a plastic applicator might start its life as part of a tree, oil reserves, and crude oil. Rayon is regenerated from cellulose fiber that can be extracted from wood pulp of mature trees using a process including harsh chemicals (Chen & Burns, 2006). This includes the use of carbon disulfide, a chemi-cal that can have various neurological, cardiovascular, immune system, and gastrointestinal effects in workers who have prolonged exposure (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 1994; Takebayashi, Omae, Ishizuka, Nomiyama, & Sakurai., 1998). The polyester in the tam-pon hull and the plastic in the applicator are made from nonrenewable petroleum products. A large quantity of water is used in the cooling process associated with the production of polyester. Energy and nonrenewable fuel are used, and carbon emissions created, at each stage of the production process and transport between sites. Once cre-ated, the tampon package is transported to a store, the con-sumer travels to the store, buys the box, and uses the tampon for a matter of hours. While being worn, high absorbency tampons have been linked to cases of “toxic shock syndrome” (National Health Service [NHS], 2010), and there are concerns about exposure to dioxins and asbestos (although refuted by the Food and Drug Administration3) and health concerns related to increased incidence of yeast infections, endometriosis, and microlac-erations (Bobel, 2010, p. 110). Once used, the tampon and applicator are either disposed of through solid waste or flushed down toilets. If flushed, it can cause blockages, can enter into the sewage system, or can enter directly into rivers or oceans if sewage treatment systems malfunction or are simply not present (Williams & Simmons, 1999).

An article by Ashley et al. (2005) comparing the envi-ronmental, human, and cost implications for disposal of sanitary waste through solid waste or flushed down toilets concluded that there was considerable cost and environ-mental savings to disposal through solid waste routes. If thrown away in a landfill, however, even a biodegradable tampon is unlikely to degrade because of lack of oxygen.

58 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(1)

The polyester lining would not degrade, nor would the plastic applicator, and whether they ended up in landfills or waterways, they would leach hormone-disrupting chemi-cals such as bisphenol A (Langston, 2010) into the environment.

Consumption: Social Science PerspectivesThe brief tampon life cycle outlined above highlights only a small fraction of the different stages and impacts of the life cycle in terms of pollution, emissions, energy, mate-rial, and water use. Even if a biophysical life cycle could be made more complete by, for example, including envi-ronmental impacts associated with research, marketing, packaging, and design of the tampon, it still would not provide us with an understanding of why the use of dis-posable products is so widespread in modern “Western” societies. Some, such as Ashley et al. (2005) have simply disregarded this question entirely: “Reusable sanitary waste items are not considered viable within developed countries, as contemporary women have become accus-tomed to efficient, non-intrusive and discrete sanitary protection” (p. 207).

Statements like this clearly show the need for further social and political examination of (un)sustainable con-sumption. We need to question the very perceptions of “convenience,” discretion, and comfort we have become accustomed to as integral parts of the problem of overcon-sumption. Menstruation itself, also needs to be viewed as more than only a biophysical process that occurs approxi-mately monthly in most females between menarche and menopause. The heavily laden term natural belies the fact that in some respects regular menstruation is itself a by-product of more affluent living standards, as women who are pregnant, breast-feeding, or malnourished will tend not to menstruate.

Scholarly thought on sustainable consumption within psychology, economics, and sociology has attempted to offer insights into how (over)consumption comes to be. Many of these efforts aimed to provide evidence and theo-retical explanations to help reduce environmental impacts of consumption. For example, Tim Jackson’s (2005) review of social–psychological and sociological literature on sus-tainable behavior change in Motivating Sustainable Consumption aims to contribute to evidence-based envi-ronmental policy making. Environmental policy making involves normative visions of the way the world should be. As Donnela Meadows puts it, “Vision is the most vital step in the policy process. If we don’t know where we want to go, it makes little difference” (as cited in Stutz, 2010, p. 57). Clearly, policy making involves competing normative perspectives on where we should go. However, the scholarly data, evidences, and theories on consumption are less

commonly recognized as inherently normative, partial narratives.

I will employ the metaphor of the “discursive construc-tion” of a story line or narrative (Hajer, 2009, p. 81) to illus-trate how these scholarly theories on (un)sustainable consumption consist of differing perspectives on the way things are, could be, and should be. The metaphor of a narra-tive allows us to analyze the constitutive parts. First, the par-ticular unit of analysis used in a narrative: either the individual as a consumer, cultures, and the story lines they contain or at the level of global economic systems. These analytical frameworks, although necessary, can serve to limit the proposed results and blinker them to potential connec-tions, for instance, between individuals and wider society. Second, the particular value assumptions of what a desirable society or environment might look like: terms such as prog-ress or societal evolution (Huber, 2009, p. 336) are often pre-sumed to be self-evident but may have very different interpretations. Third, the particular ontological assumptions from which conjectures are drawn: an analysis that assumes capitalism is inherently environmentally destructive, for example, will not necessarily further the same solutions as a perspective that sees “green capitalism” as a viable concept.

Breaking down theories of (un)sustainable consumption in this way allows us to see how different theoretical narra-tives function as discourse, and just as any other produced knowledge, these are inherently intertwined with other com-ponents of a power structure: “state-society relations, class, history . . .” (Wainwright & Mercer, 2009, p. 347). Thus, the particular narratives within science and policy need to be understood as governed by webs of power. There are those who gain by producing particular beliefs of truth and from the furthering and enactment of these beliefs. Marx (1973) in his Fragment on Machines comments on how this hap-pens in capitalist economic structures when science can be “pressed into the service of capital” which in turn “deter-mines and solicits it” (p. 704).

Using the framework established above, I will explore three different explanatory frameworks—or narratives—of unsustainable consumption, in each case exploring their core assumptions. In order to highlight how these narra-tives are prevalent in both academic discourse and in daily practice and technology, I introduce each section with an example of its practical manifestation. It is important to recognize how each practice—and technology associated with it (be it a tampon, an organic or a homemade cloth pad)—shapes social relations and is itself constructed by the social context in which it is developed. This is a core assumption of a social constructivist approach to science and technology studies (e.g., Bijker, Huges, & Pinch, 1987; Hackett, Amsterdamska, Lynch, & Wajcman, 2008), where objects are always both material and social or as Wajcman (2010) puts it—“technology and society are mutually con-stituted” (p. 149).

Davidson 59

At Your Personal Convenience: The Behavioral Narrative

Sanitary items and other personal waste should be disposed of responsibly in the household waste bin or in the special bins in public toilets. This is to protect our beaches, rivers and canals from unsightly prod-ucts, avoid harm to the marine environment and our wildlife and prevent blockages in the sewerage sys-tem. (Water UK, n.d.)

The Bag It & Bin It information campaign in the United Kingdom is led by companies involved in the water industry. Water and sewage companies throughout the United Kingdom use the logo and text of the campaign to discourage customers from flushing their disposable “personal waste” down toilets. They are asked instead to use solid waste routes by “bagging and binning.” Broadly, the information campaign aims to modify behavior to avoid “blockages in sewers or damage to the environment by putting rubbish down the toilet” (Water UK, n.d.) and, presumably, to save water companies the costs associated with blockages.

Importantly, the campaign’s scope is limited to the end-user disposal of different disposable sanitary products. The focus of analysis and action is the specific act that most affects the water industry: the act of flushing a used product down the toilet. There is little consideration of any other environmental and social impacts of the product’s life cycle. Rather, the use of disposable products is assumed and condoned as a convenient and normal part of life. This is reflected in the following quote from the “Bag It & Bin It” campaign website: “Disposable products are an every-day part of life. They are easy and convenient to use and easy and convenient to dispose of. But you should not flush them away” (Water UK, n.d.).

This informational campaign works as a kind of meta-phor for the social and psychological analyses of con-sumption that focus on informational campaigns to influence individual environmental behaviors. This view, what I will call the “behavioral” narrative, sees unsustain-ability largely resting in lack of knowledge, intrinsic moti-vation, or the “wrong” attitudes, it views individual behaviors as mechanistically determined by internal fac-tors. Studies on consumer behavior taking this view are often based in psychology, economics (Spaargaren & Cohen, 2009), or marketing studies and largely use quan-titative methods to assess the correlation between differ-ent internal factors (attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge) and environmental behavior.

The primary unit of analysis or target for interven-tions for change in these frameworks is the individual. As Tim Jackson (2005) has highlighted, the specific conception of the individual presumed is of an “atom-istic agent autonomous of social structure” (p. 89). Particularly in marketing studies and economics, the individual is conceived of as a “rational actor,” who makes consumption decision based on utility maximiz-ing calculations. The need to create quantitative mea-sures and show relationships through correlations also requires concepts such as cognition, affect, and knowl-edge to be strictly defined as either “absent” or “pres-ent” and not fluid, or complexly interlinked with specific social contexts.

The methods used and the assumptions of the individ-ual cocreate particular narratives on consumption and menstruation. Psychological studies of perceptions relat-ing to menstruation, for example, consider menstruation to be a biophysical occurrence that women have certain objectively defined symptoms of, can learn about, and be “sufficiently” or “badly” informed about (Mansfield & Stubbs, 2004; Stubbs, 2008). These are often carried out by asking predefined questions in a questionnaire in order to aggregate responses (Bhatt & Bhatt, 2005; Czerwinski, 1992; Stewart, Greer, & Powell, 2010). Such studies provide insights into overall trends—the number of women in a sample using different menstrual products and their correlations between standardized measures of self-esteem or body image (Czerwinski, 1992), the number of women who would rather not men-struate at all (Bhatt & Bhatt, 2005), or scores on quality-of-life measures (self-confidence, stress management, comfort going out in public) in relation to different men-strual products (Farage, Nusair, Hanseman, Sherman, & Tsevat, 2010).

Unsurprisingly, the proposed outcomes of these “behav-ioral” studies tend to be individual behavior change either toward different (greener) modes of consumption and behavior, such as disposing of sanitary waste through solid waste, or away from acts of consumption. The proposed

60 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(1)

strategies tend to be information or (social) marketing cam-paigns that foster individual behavior change. Zavestoski (2002), for example, argues that voluntary simplicity and abstention from consumption is undertaken by individuals who have been unable to otherwise satisfy their needs for authentic-ity through consumption. Zavestoski also alludes to one of the ultimate aims of his study: investigating “what marketing strat-egies appeal to this group of people” (p. 162). Similarly, the Farage et al. (2010) study ostensibly aims to improve women’s quality of life during menstruation. However, the article only discusses disposable menstrual products, most likely because of the fact that the article is cowritten by staff at Proctor & Gamble (2010), the company that holds one of the leading mar-ket shares in disposable menstrual products.

A view of consumption that focuses only on analysis and change of individual behaviors and attitudes related to spe-cific products or parts of the life cycle (e.g., recycling or disposal) leaves itself open to a number of critiques. First, several theorists have shown that merely increasing public knowledge or changing individual attitudes is not enough (Jensen, 2008, p. 358; Rees, 2010). So often, individuals are “locked-into” systemic and institutional infrastructures where their individual choices are circumscribed by prod-uct availability and social expectations (Hertwich, 2005, p. 5; Jackson & Papathanasopoulou, 2008). As Huber (2009) argues, the actual “green influence” end users have is lim-ited in comparison to the up-stream decisions by manufac-turers of products, where the resource and energy intensiveness lies (p. 345). While this is true in part, it clearly reflects the problems with taking a limited view on consumption as tied to the use of particular products for fulfilling needs. This perspective seems to limit menstrua-tors as only able to choose between disposing of tampons in different ways, but it views manufacturers as able to change their whole production method. Clearly, this leaves out the potential for consumers to choose alternative menstrual products or to abstain from using any products at all. As Huber (2009) himself states, “According to the environ-mental paradox of consumer society, it may be true that environmental effects are ultimately caused by attitudes and the demand of final users . . .” (p. 345).

A second criticism of behavioral approaches is that they tend not to view the very needs, wants, and perceptions of convenience as embedded within larger practices and social norms. Perceptions of the “security” or comfort of different menstrual products cannot be extracted from cultural taboos surrounding menstruation and views on its “proper” and “hygienic” management. We are thus pushed to turn to an alternative narrative of sustainable consumption that might be better able to view consumption as a cyclical pro-cess. One where end-user demand is influenced by produc-ers, and producers are influenced by end-user demand—and both are embedded in wider social practices, institutions, and the larger economic structure.

Capitalist Culture of Innovation: Ecological Modernization Narratives

At SHE, we believe that a girl’s life does not have to stop every 28 days because of her menstrual cycle. Missing up to 50 days of school or work is not only a “blood cost” to women and girls, but to their families, communities, and nations as a whole. We want to reach 1 million girls and women in Africa. Here is how it works. For every women-led and operated business that SHE invests in, approximately 100 jobs are created and approximately 100,000 girls and women have access to affordable sanitary pads. (Sustainable Health Enterprises’ SHE28 Campaign [SHE28], 2010).

Sustainable Health Enterprises’ SHE28 campaign is the initiative of Harvard MBA graduate, Elizabeth Scharpf. It aims to bring “proper sanitary products” to girls and women in the developing world (Popova, 2010). Currently, work-ing mainly in Rwanda, SHE provides the initial capital and training for local women to set up small-scale businesses to manufacture and sell “affordable, quality, and eco-friendly sanitary pads” (SHE28, 2010). The narrative employed by the project’s advertising is to use a market-based approach to bring “social returns” in health, education, the economy, and environment. SHE28 hope to decrease rates of pelvic infections by providing disposable pads as opposed to rags that—if not washed properly—may cause infection. They further aim to tackle girls’ school absenteeism, create jobs for women, and decrease the environmental footprint of menstruation (SHE28, 2010). Currently, SHE28 is selling locally made disposable pads made from imported materi-als, but they are working on “using local raw materials [such as banana fibers], instead of all imported materials” (SHE28, 2010). Apart from using local raw materials, it is unclear whether the products aim to be eco-friendly in other ways, such as being entirely plastic-free, biodegrad-able, or unbleached.

Companies such as Natracare set up in the United Kingdom in 1989 produce sanitary pads and tampons that they state are unbleached, are biodegradable, are certified organic by the U.K. Soil Association, and use only “natural ingredients sourced from sound ecologically managed pro-ducers” (Natracare, n.d.). As illustrated by their quote below, their advertising uses concepts of “modernity” and innova-tion as well as sustainability and health.

We will never compromise on quality and reliability and continue to apply modern [italics added] thinking to the use of natural materials to find intelligent and worthwhile solutions to keep Natracare the trusted and proven name it has become. We are committed to improving personal and environmental health and

Davidson 61

believe in a balanced ecologically driven lifestyle. (Natracare, n.d.)

Both the SHE28 campaign and Natracare work well as metaphors and in-practice examples of what has been termed ecological modernization. The term describes both a strand of environmental social theory and a policy approach that has dominated environmental political practice since the mid-1980s (Hajer, 2009, p. 82). Although the theorists and policy practitioners working under the umbrella of eco-logical modernization are diverse, there are a few common core assumptions. Typically, ecological modernization is described as a third way between a deep-green “radical” politics of voluntary simplicity, sufficiency, and localiza-tion; and a technocratic end-of-pipe, “eco-technotopia” (Spaargaren & Cohen, 2009, p. 257) approach to environ-mental regulation. In the narrative of ecological moderniza-tion, it is possible to achieve sustainability within the given capitalist structure (Hajer, 2009, p. 82; Mol, Sonnenfeld, & Spaargaren, 2009, p. 7), and technological advances and further industrialization are a part of the solution (Spaargaren & Mol in Fisher & Freudenburg, 2001, p. 702). Ecological modernizationists often position themselves as pragmatic, reformist, practice-oriented, and in contrast to more radical, deep-green, or neo-Marxist approaches (Mol & Jaenicke, 2009, p. 23).

With a strong link to environmental policy making, par-ticularly in Western Europe, scholarly ecological moderniza-tion approaches can be both descriptive and analytical as well as normative. The analytical scholarly work tends to take a wider view on consumption than the behavioralists outlined above. In contrast to focusing on individual consumption behavior, ecological modernization approaches see how pat-terns of consumption are tied to networks of provision, the social contexts, and meanings of daily practices (Spaargaren, 2009). Three main strands of this work, as highlighted by Spaargaren and Cohen (2009) are (1) political consumerism, (2) understanding systems of provision, and (3) household consumption and everyday practices (pp. 262-264). Each of these strands of work can be seen in practice within the case study of menstrual products.

First, analysis of the role of the political consumer might consider the relatively high profile of the SHE28 campaign as tapping into a growing consumer and donor interest in sustainable development, buying organic, and reusable menstrual products as a push toward ecological moderniza-tion. The ethical values and political views of the consum-ers, translated through spending power could be considered a powerful tool to change the production and regulation pro-cesses of products such as tampons and pads and to promote the development and sale of alternatives such as silicone menstrual cups. Menstrual cups seem like another fitting metaphor for ecological modernization as they arguably “navigate between the dark green romantic dismissal of modernity and the naïve endorsement of market driven,

liberal eco-technotopias” (Spaargaren & Cohen, 2009, p. 257): Where a “dark green” dismissal of modernity might espouse the return to use of reusable menstrual pads, and an “eco-technotopia” might be represented by use of the new generation of hormonal birth control pills marketed for con-tinual use in suppressing menstruation altogether.

Second, while the ecological modernization theorists focusing on systems of provision tend to focus more on pro-visioning of household utilities and water, their focus on new institutional forms (Spaargaren & Cohen, 2009) applies well to analyzing how regulatory organizations such as the U.K. Soil Association (http://www.soilassociation.org/) might operate in the space between consumers, producers, and gov-ernment. Such a framework may also help analyze the way in which new forms of consumption have arisen out of tech-nologies such as the Internet. It might be investigated, for example, whether rising consumption, advertising, and word-of-mouth over the Internet allows increasing mobiliza-tion of consumers of alternative menstrual products. While these products might not make it into mainstream drugstores and supermarkets, they may find a niche online.

Third, sociological approaches that have focused on the sustainability of household practices (e.g., Gram Hanssen, 2007; Ropke, 1999; Shove, 2003; Hand, Shove, & Southerton, 2005) offer insights into understanding men-strual product consumption. Instead of taking the individ-ual as the central unit of analysis for consumption, their focus is on social practices. As in Giddens’s structuration theory, this allows for consideration of individual agency as well as the effects of social structure (Giddens, 1991, in Spaargaren, 2009, p. 318). Rather than viewing consump-tion decisions as banal, individual choices, those who view consumption within cultural theory, see these as deeply intertwined with social meaning and values (Seyfang, 2004, p. 324). They go further than simply identifying and correlating particular attitudes and beliefs to behaviors—as the behavioral narrative did—to situate these within wider cultural and even generational understandings of normality (Shove, 2003). Therefore, decisions relating to menstrual care need to be seen as part of wider societal perceptions, ideals of womanhood, and of menstruation as a taboo and a “crisis of hygiene” (Raftos, Jackson, & Mannix, 1998).

While these additional perspectives are entirely necessary in understanding and achieving sustainable consumption, eco-logical modernization approaches tend to miss some more fundamental questions: Whose ideal of modernity are we striving for and why? Who gains from certain ideals of moder-nity, cleanliness, and development? Is it enough to look at how culture is produced and reproduced through practice without looking at the underlying economic and power structures of “who gains?” Proponents of ecological modernization theory tend to neglect the role of power distributions (McCarthy & Prudham, 2004). Its theories offer a more technocratic view of how consumption might become more sustainable, without

62 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(1)

deep consideration of how these processes are inherently linked with the questions of who loses and who gains.

Following this line of argumentation, the initiatives and approaches associated with a weaker version of ecological modernization have been critiqued for being an expression of neoliberal environmental governance (Guthman, 2007; McCarthy & Prudham, 2004). Where neoliberalism is an ide-ology that fosters privatization, individual consumer auton-omy, and free market–based solutions to environmental and social problems, it could be argued that organic certification labels on tampons, for example, delegate the responsibility of regulation of environmental “ills” to the individual consumer (Guthman, 2007). Rather than societies as a whole deciding to regulate against environmental ills, individual households privileged with knowledge and economic resources will be more likely afford options that—at least—purport to be safer and more ethical.

The greater worry is that these measures, by offering osten-sibly “sustainable” solutions, such as organic tampons, or dis-posable pads made of banana leaves, may serve to clear consumer and producer consciences leading to a kind of com-placency that slows work toward more substantive and sys-temic social and environmental change. It also needs to be questioned whether ecological modernization, by leaving aside critiques of the economic system, is missing some of the key reasons for ever-increasing drives toward consumption. Cultural changes alone will not provide incentives for people to consume differently if they are locked in by the need to survive within a given economic system. In an economic cri-sis, would many menstruators choose organic tampons if they cost considerably more? Would companies reduce their envi-ronmental impacts without regulations unless it somehow became more profitable to? Why would the state put in strict regulations if it was perceived as standing in the way of eco-nomic growth and competitiveness?

Furthermore, as highlighted by Fisher and Freudenburg (2001, p. 706), there is still uncertainty about whether eco-logical modernization will prove to be “correct.” The worry is that particularly the “weaker” versions of ecological mod-ernization will simply not achieve sustainability. Is it enough to foster the development of a “distinct group of citizen-consumers” that makes green choices (Spaargaren, 2009) such as using eco-friendly disposable menstrual pads? Could the earth sustain a whole world of citizen-consumers making the kinds of “green choices” made by citizens in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, often cited as the forerunners of ecological modernization. Would the technologies and lifestyles be sustainable enough to slow, halt, or reverse climate change, toxicity levels, species loss, and soil degradation?

While the innovations and theories espoused by ecologi-cal modernization are necessary parts to the puzzle of sus-tainable consumption, I would argue with Langhelle (2009, chap. 25) that they are not sufficient (p. 412). We need to look for narratives of consumption that offer a deeper

critique of the causes of consumption with an understand-ing of how these tie to social inequality and injustice.

Narrative III: Decommodify! The Systemic Critiques

These images come from a TreeHugger article that outlines the creative, environmental, and activist nature of making reusable menstrual pads. It provides links to patterns for sewing one’s own pads using reused or organic cotton and advises on caring for pads: “Just use them, soak them in cold water, and cold water wash them with your regular laundry” (Mok, 2007). It highlights a number of ways in which readers can enact menstrual activism, not only by creating their own pads but by contacting their political representatives, menstrual product companies, and talking about menstruation: “Don’t hide it, talk about it.” Menstrual activism, also termed menarchy (Kelleher, 2009), often ties together feminist, anticapitalist,4 and anticonsumerist ide-ologies and pushes for menstrual attitudes and products that they consider healthier for women and the environment (Bobel, 2010, p. 195).

Not all those who buy or make their own reusable pads do so for the same reasons, and certainly not all would call themselves menstrual activists. However, the back-to-basics and do-it-yourself ethic often associated with reusable men-strual pads works as an appropriate metaphor for solutions espoused by more deeply critical takes on consumption. The contrast between what I will call the systemic critique and ecological modernization can be illustrated by an analysis of the following quote from the SHE28 promotional video:

What does a woman do when she can’t afford pads? She uses rags [italics added], bark, and mud. That’s not enough protection! Each year she misses up to 50 days of school or work. (SHE28, 2010)

This quote epitomizes a view of reusable pads—or “rags”—as unhygienic, underdeveloped, or premodern, which restricts women from full participation in their communities and economies. Systemic critiques might counter this and state that it is not menstrual rags themselves that are necessarily unhygienic but the lack of clean water, private spaces, and menstrual taboos that leave women unable to hygienically

“Bleed With Pride: Make-it-Yourself Menstrual Pads” Treehugger.com article (Mok, 2007).

Davidson 63

wash and dry their pads (Ahmed & Yesmin, 2008). These critiques would tend to ask who is promoting the use of cer-tain menstrual products and why, and why do women need to be “protected from” menstruation. They would interrogate the very concepts of “modernity,” “hygiene,” and “develop-ment” used in campaigns like SHE28.

The narratives that could fall under the heading of sys-temic critiques come from diverse scholarly backgrounds of neo-Marxism, political ecology, political economy, eco-feminist perspectives, and deep-green philosophy. While it is, again, unfair to bring these various strains together within one narrative, there are key themes that justify such rough classification. First, systemic critiques tend to see problems of overconsumption as inherent in the given (patriarchal, capitalist, postcolonial) economic and social system. Thus, as suggested by the article in the TreeHugger forum, it is not enough to merely buy or make menstrual products purported to be more environmentally sound, it is important to also challenge the economic and social structures that create the environmental problem in the first place. Depending on the particular feminist, neo-Marxist, or postcolonial emphasis of the critique, the explanatory and critical narrative of overconsumption will have a different primary focus.

Second, systemic critiques tend to view overconsumption not merely as an empirical and technical problem requiring the power of better science, more appropriate management systems, or greener technology, rather, they view environ-mental problems as deeply political, related to landscapes of power, and the power to create meanings.5 Their narratives of overconsumption highlight the organisms, individuals, social strata, organizations, and parts of the globe that gain more from consumption of disposable products and those that lose. This means that analyses of overconsumption is paired with analyses of oppression (e.g., Manno, 2010a) or environmental justice in access to resources and exposure to risks (e.g., Bru-Bistuer, 1996). They also tend to view how histories of domination, structures of patriarchy, colonial-ism, and capitalism led to the dominance of certain meanings and norms related to the environment, development, and identities. A systemic critique also allows us to see how tech-nologies themselves are inherently political. They are inscribed—at the stage of design, advertising, or by the end user—with particular narratives (Gorenstein, 2010, p. 206). As Gorenstein (2010) puts it in her discussion of feminist technologies, “No matter how they are created, technologies as material objects are themselves forces of action because they carry ideas” (p. 212).

A feminist critique might claim that disposable pads and tampons are inscribed with patriarchal ideas of menstruation as taboo and a “crisis of hygiene” (Raftos et al., 1998) that needs to be hidden at all costs. Increased consumption of disposable menstrual products might be explained, as Berkeley (1981) has, by women’s increasing entry into male-dominated workplaces requiring a disciplining of women’s bodies to masculine routines and norms. Menstruation had to

be concealed, masked, and managed in a way that made women acceptable in a patriarchal system. In contrast, it might be argued that disposable products are feminist tech-nologies that liberate women from manual tasks of making, washing, or mending menstrual rags. This is a limited view on the “empowerment” of some women over others. It does not take into account the health and empowerment of women involved in other stages of a disposable product’s life cycle—women exposed to carbon disulfide in the manufacture of rayon, for example. Nor does this view take into account that disposable menstrual products are primarily developed and sold by companies in order to make a profit and not, in the first instance, to benefit women.

Theorists and activists taking an (ecological) Marxist stance argue that sustainable capitalism, as advocated by the ecological modernization narrative, is a paradox (O’Connor, 1994, in Fisher & Freudenburg, 2001). O’Connor (1998), for example, argues that capitalism is inherently crisis prone and tends toward undermining the very natural and social basis of production, labor, and natural resources. According to this narrative,6 capital—represented in our specific example by large transnational companies such as Proctor & Gamble selling disposable menstrual products—will continuously seek to colonize and create new markets in order to extract profits. By producing and expanding needs—for scented menstrual pads, for brightly colored pads, pads for sleeping, and panty liners—capital produces and benefits from nega-tive perceptions of menstruation as a taboo and ideals of a clean womanhood, unmarred and unscented by periods. It ultimately also pays for them to produce a lot of garbage, as disposability of products increases the rate of capital circula-tion. As Strasser (1999) writes in her social history of trash, “. . . the growth of markets for new products came to depend in part on the continuous disposal of old things” (p. 15).

Postcolonial critiques might view the construction of the problem of lack of sanitary pads in developing countries as a discourse that seeks to legitimate the colonization of emergent markets by large transnational companies such as Proctor & Gamble. Their “Protecting Futures: Keeping Girls in School” program, for example, provides imported Tampax and Always products to women in developing countries. However, these imported products are often far more expensive to buy and add more waste to already over-loaded solid waste systems. Furthermore, research con-ducted by Oster and Thornton (2010) questions the extent to which girls’ absenteeism is truly because of lack of men-strual products.

For feminist, anticapitalist menstrual activists, one way to undermine a capitalist, patriarchal system and improve the sustainability of menstruation is through the do-it-yourself, collaborative practice of sharing pad patterns and making your own (Bobel, 2010, p. 195). Another is to eschew all menstrual containment and “free-bleed” into clothing or bedding. Similarly, reusable silicone or latex menstrual cups, that can be washed and reused for up to 10 years, are often

64 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(1)

sold on the Internet by small, women-owned companies.7 These technologies require women to navigate their own anatomies and confront their menstrual blood, a necessity some women may find promotes body acceptance, aware-ness, and personal health maintenance.

There are, however, a few critical questions that need to be asked of the narratives outlined above. How accessible are these (theoretical) narratives and practices? How likely are they to gain widespread acceptance? The use of so-called “alternative” menstrual products might itself be somewhat of a class-based movement. In Bobel’s (2010) qualitative study of menstrual activists, 60% of those interviewed were middle or upper class. Reusable prod-ucts, while costing less in the long run, tend to involve more of an up-front cost that may lower access by poorer sections of society (Wilk, 2004, p. 21). Furthermore, are these reusable products truly always more sustainable? There is nothing inherently unsustainable about producing waste; what is more important is what is disposed of, how much, where, and how. Similarly, reusable products are not inherently green. While using reusable products reduces the number of disposable pads and tampons pro-duced, transported, and thrown away, this needs to be weighed out against the environmental impacts of produc-tion, ongoing care (e.g., washing, boiling, or disinfecting) and eventual disposal of reusables. As highlighted by a study comparing the sustainability of disposable and reus-able nappies, cloth reusable nappies win the sustainability race only if they are laundered at lower temperatures and line-dried (Aumonier, Collins, & Garrett, 2008).

Commoditization as a Meta-NarrativeWe can take a step back from the narratives presented above and apply some of the same questioning tactics employed by the radical critique to ask some critical questions. Why are some of these narratives of overconsumption more dominant in policy and academia than others, and why are some of the menstrual practices more dominant in Western “modern” societies? Although up-to-date statistics of menstrual prod-uct use are hard to come by,8 the dominant practice seems to be an enactment of the first narrative: using regular dispos-able pads and tampons, with a proportion of these disposed of through toilets. Why are biodegradable, certified organic tampons and pads and reusable menstrual products far less commonly used?

Each of the three ideal-type narratives I outlined in the sections above might have their own answers to both these questions. Behavioralists might say menstrual product choice is a matter of individual attitudes relating to comfort and convenience, weighed up against knowledge and atti-tudes relating to health concerns and environmental commit-ments. Similarly, prevalence of theoretical explanations in academia and policy is a matter of supply and demand. The

ecological modernization stance might view those buying “greener” menstrual products as a small and hopeful act of political consumerism and blame lack of political will, fail-ure of environmental regulatory systems, or unwieldy cul-tural constructs of convenience and protection for lack of more widespread use. A more critical and systemic narrative is offered here by looking at the theory of commoditization (Manno, 2000, 2010a).

Using the metaphor of Darwinian evolution, Manno (2010a) describes commoditization as a kind of systemic selection process inherent in self-regulating market econo-mies. The drive for investment, profit, and efficiency system-atically selects for the goods and services with high commodity potential at the cost of those with low commodity potential. Commodity potential is understood as the likeli-hood of a service to be bought and sold in the marketplace. Key characteristics associated with high commodity potential are suitability for expansion of production and distribution at lower labor costs (e.g., highly portable, reproducible goods) and thus high returns on investment (Manno, 2000, p. 220). Low commodity potential goods and services tend to be those that are not easily reproduced, marketed, and shipped—those tied to specific knowledge, places, and ecosystems based on interpersonal relationships and cooperation. Free market–based competition and a path dependency toward commodity options serve to systematically privilege the allocation of societies’ resources and attention toward the fulfillment of needs and wants through commodities.

This framework applies exceptionally well for under-standing the tendency for “Western” free market–based soci-eties to gravitate toward disposable menstrual products and behavioral theories. Menstrual care product options can be lined up on a trajectory from low to high commodity poten-tial as in Figure 1 below.

Lower commodity potential approaches also tend to be those with lower environmental impacts. This can be shown by overlaying the commonly used waste minimization mantra: “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recover and Manage.” These line up in order of effectiveness but, as pointed out by Manno (2000, p. 101), also in order of commodity potential (Figure 2).

Menstrual suppression is increasingly advertised by com-panies promoting hormonal contraceptive pills such as Seasonale (Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, 2008). They offer the highest commodity potential “men-strual management” option. Pills are highly transportable, reproducible by machinery, and subject to patent. By regulat-ing or suppressing periods altogether, the hormonal pills liter-ally “resist and/or alter natural flows and cycles” (Manno, 2000, p. 33) and are “convenient” in reducing or eliminating time spent on menstrual care. Women no longer need to chart their cycles or predict their period or flow, thus reducing the knowledge women need to have about their own bodies. Instead the pill “embodies” the knowledge (Manno, 2000, p. 45) of the clinical research and development. The regular pro-duction, prescription, and sale of the pill for daily use

Davidson 65

contributes to the economy (as measured by gross domestic product), but unfortunately, the pill’s synthetic estrogens also contribute to the synthetic hormone load in our waterways—with potentially detrimental effects on human and ecosystem health.9 The potential side effects to the user also necessitate regular medical checkups, with health costs incurred by national health services or individuals.

Disposable pads and tampons offer a medium commodity potential option. Rather than requiring daily consumption, these products need to be restocked during each menstrual cycle and are clearly short-term purchases as they are des-tined to be discarded. They require more knowledge of the body than the pill (think of inserting a tampon) but are still geared toward convenience.

Silicone and rubber menstrual cups offer a lower com-modity potential option as they are far more durable products, lasting for approximately 10 years. They require more com-fort and knowledge of women’s own bodies in order to use, and more care of the product (washing, boiling/disinfecting, drying). However, they are still mass produced, highly repli-cable, and transportable. This is in contrast to many of the reusable menstrual pads available on the market through arti-san websites, such as www.etsy.com, and women-run compa-nies, such as www.gladrags.com. They represent a kind of artisan, cottage industry production of menstrual pads, with more diversity in design, lower labor productivity, and lower capital intensity (a sewing machine).

Finally, menstrual care approaches that involve attempt-ing to create different, more positive views of menstruation—make-your-own menstrual pad parties, talking about menstruation, using menstrual blood to feed plants, celebrat-ing menarche, or even shifting toward using applicator-less tampons, which requires a change in women’s perceptions—represent menstrual care practices with lower commodity potential. Communal, meditative menstrual seclusion as practiced in some indigenous cultures (Rojas, 2003) as well as the use of local natural materials, such as moss or sea

sponges, are other examples. They are “tied to physical and biological constraints” (Manno, 2000, p. 33), are based on cooperative relationships and specific knowledge of culture, and are more systemic in their approach.

Commoditization pressures also apply to the economies of science and academia and will tend to privilege those theories and methods that focus on the level of a product or component rather than a systemic level (Manno, 2000, p. 107). Therefore the narratives of consumption I have intro-duced above—the behavioral, ecological modernization, and systemic critiques—can be shown to follow a similar trajectory of commodity potential. Behavioral theories that break down and study quantifiable attitudes and behaviors relating to consumption will tend to be more easily repli-cated, employed by industry, and more easily turned into informational campaigns. As an example of this, the “Bag it & Bin it” campaign with its reproducible logo and text is replicated and employed by different water companies throughout the United Kingdom.

Ecological modernization narratives offer a kind of medium commodity potential theory. While ecological modernization does focus far more on the level of processes (governance, industrial processes, management systems, culture), it can still be seen as relatively commoditizable. The general program of espousing industrial modernization, greener technologies, and more sustainable management and regulatory systems can be seen as replicable beyond the European context in which it first gained ascendancy. This can be seen by the increasing attempts to apply ecological modernization policy and research to non-European con-texts (see Mol et al., 2009). Similarly, the SHE28 approach of building sustainable menstrual product businesses aims to apply a relatively standard model of production and dis-tribution to different African contexts. Characteristic of a higher commodity potential science (Manno, 2000, p. 107), however, they are finding a product-based solution to the problems of school absenteeism or women’s health, rather

Low com m od ity potentia l H igh com m od ity po ten tia l

Locally specific practices, changing

attitudes, use of moss, sea sponge

Home made reusable pads

Bought reusable pads

Silicone or latex cup

Menstrual suppression through

hormonesDisposable pads and

tampons

Figure 1. Menstrual care options by commodity potential

66 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(1)

than looking to systemic causes of poverty and women’s disadvantage.

In contrast, the systemic critiques, which I argue have the lowest commodity potential, tend to be marginalized and denounced as “radical” (Mol & Jaenicke, 2009, p. 23). Feminists, political ecologists, and political economists have increasingly argued for the use of qualitative, case-study approaches to under-standing specific histories of human-environment relation-ships.10 These analyses rarely result in a new product to be created or even a specific management plan. Frustratingly for some, they tend to offer more intangible outputs, such as chang-ing consciousness and creating new and empowering narratives and meanings in order to, perhaps, “build meanings and bodies that have a chance for life” (Haraway, 1988, p. 580). As Jackson (2005) points out, there is often a trade-off in terms of empirical testability and explanatory completeness and efficacy (p. 23). Unfortunately policy approaches tend to favor the former—high commodity potential science that can claim to prove links between attitudes and consumption behavior—than theories offering complex webs of explanation.

Conclusions: Toward Narratives and Practices That WorkMenstrual products may only make up a small proportion of the total waste, toxicity, resource, and energy use contributing to environmental degradation. A choice between a disposable tampon or a reusable silicone cup, in some ways is a minor choice that only affects one aspect of a menstruating person’s life. However, through focusing on one bodily process, and the myriad ways in which it is cared for, we can view and assess some of the current narratives and practices of (over-)consumption. The narratives I presented by no means epito-mize or entirely accurately represent bodies of theory, rather they are meant as heuristic devices, showing how different narratives explain consumption and aim for sustainability—while employing different solutions, analytical frameworks, and assumptions of truth.

The bottom line questions remain: Which narrative will work in practice? How can we encourage narratives and practices of consumption that provide the best chances of planetary survival and human well-being? My discussion of the three narratives—behavioral, ecological moderniza-tion, and systemic critiques—has highlighted the choices facing individuals and policy makers. More behavioral analyses of consumptive practices might fit most readily into quantitative, market-oriented policy making, but they will tend to put the onus on individual choices and percep-tions of cost, cleanliness, or convenience. By following these narratives, we fail to investigate how these percep-tions are culturally and economically structured and risk “end-of-pipe” solutions to waste management epitomized by the “Bag it & Bin it” campaign. By following an eco-logical modernization narrative of consumption, we risk being satisfied by technological fixes or goods labeled as “green,” without seeing the underlying economic rational-ity that structures consumption. Although both behavioral and ecological modernization analyses of consumption illuminate a part of the puzzle of sustainable consumption, I have argued that a systemic critical approach—and in particular an understanding of commoditization—offers a more comprehensive explanation of current consumption practices. It also offers a meta-analysis to explain the dom-inance of certain theories over others.

Perhaps the question that we need to ask most urgently is, Which narrative do we need to follow? Evidence points toward anthropogenic global environmental change—from climate change, to biodiversity loss, changed land use, and disruptions in the nitrogen cycle—that are transgressing the safe operating boundaries for continued human life on earth (Rockström et al., 2009). It is clear that our current consumptive lifestyles need to change, and for the most part, it is clear what concrete actions need to be taken. The most problematic to shift appear to be the individual and societal narratives we tell ourselves to justify behaviors and prioritization we make. More highly commodified

Reduce: e.g. practices that do not require energy intensive

manufacturing – sea sponges, moss, free-flowing (practice of

bleeding into clothing/bedsheets),

making tampons applicator-free

Reuse:e.g. reusable pads, cups

Recycle:e.g. pads and tampons packaged in recycled

cardboard

Recover:

Manage: e.g. “Bag it and Bin It”

campaign, water treatment removing hormones from

waterways

Figure 2. Waste reduction in order of effectivenessSource. Adapted from Manno (2000, p. 101).

Davidson 67

ways of fulfilling needs and wants tend to be those associ-ated with higher energy and resource throughput and, thus, worse environmental impacts. The underlying logic under-pinning ongoing commodification is a prioritization of a market rationality, where only products “count,” and the driver is toward growth. This means growth in the range and number of products available for consumers (e.g., scented pads, shaped pads, colorful pads, panty liners for everyday use), and their turnaround (i.e., disposability) to promote growth in profits for companies. This amounts to growing garbage, toxicity, greenhouse gases, and reduced natural resources.

If we choose to value the benefits brought by lower commodity solutions: practices and theories that are more ecologically sound, holistic, rooted in time and place, coop-erative, durable, and complex (Manno, 2000, p. 31)—we will need to adopt policies that counteract commoditiza-tion. As the systemic critique has highlighted, this also requires a close look at how these commoditization pres-sures in the current economic system create and exacerbate inequality and disadvantage along gender, class, and ethnic lines. Pairing the discussion of narratives with specific menstrual technologies provides a glimpse of insight offered by science and technology studies: How the materi-ality of technology itself can foster or inhibit the enactment of social relations—gendered power dynamics (Wajcman, 2010, p. 15)—and can be “site[s] of imaginative engage-ment and shifting consciousness” (Moran, 2008). By inter-rogating a set of—often taken-for-granted—everyday practices related to caring for the body during menstrua-tion, I have tried to analyze what kind of narratives we are enacting with our everyday technologies and practices. This is the first step in deciding which narratives and prac-tices we choose to live in order to create the kind of planet and society we want to live in.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

1. Manno (2000, p. 10), for example, uses the term mobilization rather than consumption to better reflect the circulation of mat-ter and energy into goods and services and waste products.

2. Although at times I will use “women” when talking about “those who menstruate,” this is not to simply equate woman-hood with menstruation. It is important to note that there are women who do not menstruate, and also those who menstru-ate who do not identify themselves as women (e.g., transmen preoperation; Bobel, 2010, p. 11).

3. Stating, “FDA’s risk assessment indicates that this exposure is many times less than normally present in the body from other environmental sources, so small that any risk of adverse health effects is considered negligible” (Food and Drug Administra-tion, 2009).

4. See, for example, the Edinburgh Anarcha Feminist Kollec-tive's Femstruation week http://edinburghanarchafeminist.blogspot.com.

5. For examples relating to consumption see DuPuis (2000a, 2000b), Guthman and DuPuis (2006), McCarthy (2002), and Robbins (2007).

6. For versions of this core ecological Marxist narrative, each based on different case studies, see, for example, Boyd (2001) and Langston (2010).

7. Such as www.divacup.com, www.gladrags.com, and www.mooncup.co.uk.

8. For example, a study on U.S. menstrual product use by ethnic-ity (Finkelstein & von Eye, 1990) discussed disposable pads and tampons as the only menstrual product options.

9. see Langston (2010) for an environmental history of synthetic hormones in the United States.

10. O’Connor (1998), for example, has argued for the need for “concrete historical and natural analyses of concrete situa-tions” (p. 7). For examples of such qualitative, case-study based work in political ecology, see Agrawal (1992) and Peet and Watts (2004).

References

Agrawal, B. (1992). The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies, 18, 119-158.

Ahmed, R., & Yesmin, K. (2008). Menstrual hygiene: Breaking the silence. In Beyond construction: Use by all (a collection of case studies from sanitation and hygiene promotion practitioners in South Asia). London, England: WaterAid and Delft. Retrieved from http://www.irc.nl/page/40450 ch-21.pdf

Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Souter, N., Hendry, S., Moir, J., Dunkerley, J., . . . Goldie, P. (2005). Sustainable disposal of domestic sanitary waste. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 131, 206-215.

Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. (2008). Clini-cal fact sheet: Menstrual suppression. Retrieved from http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/clinical-fact-sheets/menstrual-suppression

Aumonier, S., Collins, M., & Garrett, P. (2008). An updated life-cycle assessment study for disposable and reusable nappies. Bristol, England: UK Environment Agency. Retrieved from http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO-0808BOIR-e-e.pdf

Berkeley, K. (1981). The intimacy of commodities: Social control, subjectivity and feminine hygiene (Unpublished master’s the-sis). McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Bhatt, R., & Bhatt, M. (2005). Perceptions of Indian women regard-ing menstruation. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 88, 164-167.

Bijker, W., Huges, T., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.

68 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(1)

Bobel, C. (2010). New blood: Third-wave feminism and the politics of menstruation. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Boyd, W. (2001). Making meat: Science, technology, and American poultry production. Technology and Culture, 42, 631-664.

Bru-Bistuer, J. (1996). Spanish women against industrial waste. In D. Rocheleau, B. Thomas-Slayter, & E. Wangari (Eds.), Femi-nist political ecology: Global Issues and local experiences. New York, NY: Routledge.

Chen, H. L., & Burns, L. D. (2006). Environmental analysis of textile products. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24, 248-261.

Cohen, M. J., Brown, H. S., & Vergragt, P. J. (2010). Individual consumption and systemic societal transformation: Introduc-tion to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 6(2), 6-12.

Czerwinski, B. S. (1992). Relationship between feminine hygiene practices, body image and self esteem. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 54(3), 1330.

DuPuis, E. M. (2000a). The body and the country: A political ecol-ogy of consumption. In M. Gottdiener (Ed.), New forms of con-sumption (pp. 131-152). Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

DuPuis, E. M. (2000b). Not in my body: rBGH and the rise of organic milk. Agriculture and Human Values, 17, 285-295.

European Environmental Agency. (2010). The European environ-ment, state and outlook: Consumption and the environment. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author. Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe/consumption-and-environment

Farage, M., Nusair, T., Hanseman, D., Sherman, S., & Tsevat, J. (2010). The Farage quality of life measure for consumer products: Development and initial implementation. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 5, 1-25.

Finkelstein, J. W., & von Eye, A. (1990). Sanitary product use by white, black and Mexican American women. Public Health Reports, 105, 491-496.

Fisher, D., & Freudenburg, W. R. (2001). Ecological modernization and its critics: Assessing the past and looking toward the future. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 701-709.

Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient alert: Tampons and asbestos, dioxin and toxic shock syndrome. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PatientAlerts/ucm070003.htm

Gorenstein, S. (2010). What we now know about feminist tech-nologies. In L. L. Layne, S. L. Vostral, & K. Boyer (Eds.), Feminist technology (pp. 203-214). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Gram-Hanssen, K. (2007). Teenage consumption of cleanliness: How to make it sustainable? Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 3(2), 15-23.

Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M., & Whatmore, S. (2009). The dictionary of human geography (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Guthman, J. (2007). The Polanyian way? Voluntary food labels as neoliberal governance. Antipode, 39, 456-478.

Guthman,J., & DuPuis, M. (2006). Embodying neoliberalism: Economy, culture, and the politics of fat. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 427-448.

Hackett, E., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hajer, M. A. (2009). Ecological modernisation as cultural politics. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernization reader (pp. 80-100). Oxon, England: Routledge.

Hand, M., Shove, E., & Southerton, D. (2005). Explaining showering: A discussion of the material, conventional, and temporal dimensions of practice. Sociological Research Online, 10(2).

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism as a site of discourse on the privilege of partial per-spective. Feminist Studies, 14, 575-599.

Hertwich, E. G. (2005). Consumption and industrial ecology. Jour-nal of Industrial Ecology, 9, 1-6.

Huber, J. (2009). Upstreaming environmental action. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The eco-logical modernization reader (pp. 42-55). Oxon, England: Routledge.

Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change (Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network). Guildford, England: University of Surrey.

Jackson, T., & Papathanasopoulou, E. (2008). Luxury or ‘lock-in’? An exploration of unsustainable consumption in the UK: 1968 to 2000. Ecological Economics, 68, 80-95.

Jensen, J. O. (2008). Measuring consumption in households: Inter-pretations and strategies. Ecological Economics, 68, 353-361.

Kelleher, K. (2009). Bloody hell: Menstrual activists make peri-ods public. Retrieved from http://jezebel.com/5372984/bloody-hell-menstrual-activists-make-periods-public

Korten, D. C. (1991). Sustainable development in cooperation for international development. World Policy Journal, 9, 1.

Langhelle, O. (2009). Why ecological modernisation and sustain-able development should not be conflated. In P. J. A. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological mod-ernization reader: Environmental reform in theory and practice (pp. 391-417). Oxon, England: Routledge.

Langston, N. (2010). Toxic bodies: Hormone disruptors and the legacy of DES. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Manno, J. (2000). Privileged goods: Commoditization and its impact on environment and society. New York, NY: Lewis.

Manno, J. (2010a). Commoditization and oppression: A systems approach to understanding the economic dynamics of modes of oppression. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 164-178.

Manno, J. (2010b). Sustainability/sufficiency. In R. Denemark (Ed.), The international studies compendium project and ency-clopedia (Vol. 3, pp. 1598-1618). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

Mansfield, P. K., & Stubbs, M. L. (2004). Tracking the course of menstrual life: Contributions from the society for menstrual cycle research. Women’s Health Issues, 14, 174-176.

Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse. New York, NY: Vintage.

Davidson 69

McCarthy, J. (2002). First world political ecology: Lessons from the Wise Use movement. Environment and Planning A, 34, 1281-1302.

McCarthy, J., & Prudham, S. (2004). Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism. Geoforum, 35, 275-283.

Mok, K. (2007). Bleed with pride: Make-it-yourself menstrual pads (Fashion and Beauty Section). Tree Hugger. Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/11/make_your_own_pad.php

Mol, A. P. J., & Jaenicke, M. (2009). The origins and theoretical foundations of ecological modernization theory. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren. The ecological moderniza-tion reader (pp. 17-27). Oxon, England: Routledge.

Mol, A. P. J., Sonnenfeld, D. A., & Spaargaren, G. (2009). The eco-logical modernization reader. Oxon, England: Routledge.

Moran, S. (2008). Under the lawn: Engaging the water cycle. Eth-ics, Place & Environment, 11, 129-145.

National Health Service. (2010). Health A-Z: Toxic-Shock-Syndrome. Retrieved from http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Toxic-shock-syndrome/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Natracare. (n.d.). Natracare: Healthier by nature. Retrieved from http://www.natracare.com/test/products/the_natural_choice.htm

O’Connor, J. (1998). Natural causes: Essays in ecological Marx-ism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Oster, E., & Thornton, R. (2010). Menstruation, sanitary products and school attendance: Evidence from a randomized evaluation. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 91-100.

Peet, R., & Watts, M. (Eds.). (2004). Liberation ecologies: Environ-ment, development and social movements (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

Popova, M. (2010). She28: Sustainable sanitary products empower women in the developing world at Big Think. Retrieved from http://bigthink.com/ideas/24941

Proctor & Gamble. (2010). Protecting futures. Always and Tam-pax: Protecting the futures of girls. Retrieved from http://www.pg.com/en_US/sustainability/social_responsibility/protect-ing_futures.shtml

Raftos, M., Jackson, D., & Mannix, J. (1998). Idealised versus tainted femininity: discourses of the menstrual experience in Australian magazines that target young women. Nursing Inquiry, 5, 174-186.

Rees, W. (2010). What’s blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition and denial. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 6(2), 13-25.

Robbins, P. (2007). Lawn people: How grasses, weeds and chemi-cals make us who we are. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsoci-ety.org/vol14/iss2/art32

Rojas, M. V. (2003). She bathes in a sacred place: Rites of reciproc-ity, power, and prestige in Alta California. Wicazo Sa Review, 18, 129-156.

Ropke, I. (1999). The dynamics of willingness to consume. Eco-logical Economics, 28, 399-420.

Ropke, I., & Reisch L. A. (2004). The place of consumption in ecological economics. In L. A. Reisch & I. Ropke (Eds.), The ecological economics of consumption (pp. 1-15). Northampton, England: Edward Elgar.

Seyfang, G. (2004). Consuming values and contested cultures: A critical analysis of the UK strategy for sustainable consumption and production. Review of Social Economy, 62, 323-338.

Shove, E. (2003). Converging conventions of comfort, cleanliness and convenience. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 395-418.

Spaargaren, G. (2009). Sustainable consumption: A theoretical and environmental policy perspective. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Son-nenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernisation reader (pp. 318-333). Oxon, England: Routledge.

Spaargaren, G., & Cohen, M. (2009). Greening lifecycles and lifestyles. In A. P. J. Mol, D. A. Sonnenfeld, & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), The ecological modernisation reader (pp. 257-274). Oxon, England: Routledge.

Stewart, K., Greer, R., & Powell, M. (2010). Women’s experience of using the Mooncup. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 30, 285-287.

Strasser, S. (1999). Waste and want: A social history of trash. New York, NY: Henry & Holt.

Stubbs, M. L. (2008). Cultural perceptions and practices around menarche and adolescent menstruation in the United States. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1135, 58-66.

Stutz, J. (2010). The three-front war: pursuing sustainability in a world shaped by explosive growth. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 6, 49-59.

Sustainable Health Enterprises SHE28 Campaign. (2010). Fre-quently asked questions about sustainable health enterprises. Retrieved from http://she28.sheinnovates.com/sheSpeaks-FAQS2010.pdf

Takebayashi, T., Omae, K., Ishizuka, C., Nomiyama, T., & Sakurai, H. (1998). Cross sectional observation of the effects of carbon disulphide on the nervous system, endocrine system, and sub-jective symptoms in rayon manufacturing workers. Occupa-tional Environmental Medicine, 55, 473-479.

United Nations Departments for Environmental and Social Affairs. (2011). Consumption and production patterns. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/climate-change/con-sumption.shtml

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994). Chemical summary for carbon disulfide. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/chemfact/s_carbds.txt

Wainwright, J. D., & Mercer, K. L. (2009). The dilemma of decon-tamination: A Gramscian analysis of the transgenic maize dis-pute. Geoforum, 40, 345-354.

Wajcman, J. (2010). Feminist Theories of Technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34, 143-152.

Water UK. (n.d.) The Bag It & Bin It campaign. Retrieved from http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/bagandbin

70 Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 32(1)

Wilk, R. (2004). Questionable assumptions about sustainable con-sumption. In L. A. Reisch & I. Ropke (Eds.), The ecological economics of consumption (pp. 17-31). Northampton, England: Edward Elgar.

Williams, A. T., & Simmons, S. L. (1999). Sources of riverine litter: The river Taff, South Wales, UK. Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 112, 197-216.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Towards sustainable development. In Our common future (pp. 43-66). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Zavestoski, S. (2002). The social-psychological bases of anticon-sumption attitudes. Psychology & Marketing, 19, 149-165.

Bio

Anna Davidson is a graduate student in environmental studies at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York. Her research interests lie in environmental social and political theory, political ecology, and qualitative methods. Her current focus is on sustainability of body care and household practices.