Who is heard in wolf debates? Gender, emotion, and conservation legitimacy

Abstract

Wolves evoke intense public debate shaped by cultural norms and power relations. However, the role of gender in influencing discourse, credibility, and participation in these conflicts remains underexplored. This study examines how gender structures emotional expression, epistemic authority, and legitimacy in wolf-related conflicts in Norway and Austria. Qualitative interviews and field observations were analyzed using a discourse-sensitive approach to identify masculine and feminine framings of fear, aggression, and coexistence. Masculinity was linked to authority and protection, while femininity was associated with fear and empathy, responses often dismissed as irrational. These patterns were contested, with diverse positions and alternative masculinities grounded in empathy and coexistence. Gendered discourse underpins attitudes toward wolves as well as whose knowledge and concerns are recognized as valid in wildlife governance. Addressing these dynamics can enhance inclusion and legitimacy in conservation policy by integrating both affective and experience-based forms of knowledge.