|
In retrospect: This paper is not explicitly on development, but the ecofeminist project is relevant to me in how I try to perceive development because of its analysis of power, focus on the enviroment and marginalized groups, and treatment of the interconnections between issues. Writing this paper helped me to organize my thoughts on how I would like development to be treated. On the other hand, I discovered some dissapointing aspects of ecofeminism while doing this independent study (with my best friend), and am aware of its limitations.
Ecofeminism: Understandings and Critiques
IR 398--Lott, January 2006
Ecofeminism has grown organically out of a series of events, other activist movements, and issues. Although the French feminist Francoise d’Eaubonne coined the term in the 1970’s,1 there is no one person who can be credited with the creation of ecofeminism, it has been very much a group effort. It must be noted that this paper is based mostly on a literature review of formal ecofeminist scholarship; there may be ecofeminist activists or groups that would provide a different perspective on ecofeminism through interviews and participation.
So what is ecofeminism? Stephanie Lahar writes, “there are almost as many definition of what ecofeminism is as there are theorists and activists.”2 What ecofeminists can agree on is that the domination of women and nature, and all other forms of oppression, are unjustified and have important connections that need to be addressed as interconnected, not separate, issues. Ecofeminism is different from other feminisms because it makes environmentalism a central part of its analysis from the beginning. And ecofeminism is different from environmentalism because it connects environmentalism to the immediate issues facing other movement and addresses the gendered justifications for environmental destruction. However, ecofeminism is more than just a feminism-ecology hybrid, it claims to tie together all issues of oppression.
A foundational aspect of ecofeminism is the idea that to address the oppression of women one must address the links with the exploitation of nonhuman others as well. Ecofeminism is at the crossroads of feminism, anti-racism movements, environmentalism, critiques of capitalism, heterosexism, homophobia, etc.3
Thus ecofeminism’s sphere is rather large and blurred. Chris Cuomo captures this sense of ecofeminism well:
ecofeminist arguments are meant not only to uncover the connections between misogyny, sexism, or institutions of gender and the exploitation of the so called natural world, but also to make explicit connections among these and other forms of oppression. Ecofeminists are particularly interested in the ways oppression depends on hierarchical, dualistic thinking, and values that propagate the glorification of qualities supposedly ‘naturally’ held by those with economic, sexual, racial, hegemonic power.4
Ecofeminism addresses the convergence of artificially separated issues such as racism, sexism, naturism, ableism, heterosexism, and classism. It addresses these issues on many levels (the local, the global, the individual, etc.) and how they connect across many levels. The theory that ecofeminists use as their lens is often broad. Lahar writes,
ecofeminist theory includes a systemic analysis of domination that specifically includes oppression of women and environmental exploitation, and it advocates a synthesis of ecological and feminist principles as guiding lights for political organizing and the creation of ecological socially equitable lifestyles.5
Some authors refer to ecofeminism as a movement, others a theory and others a philosophy. Some use these terms interchangeably. The problem is that ecofeminism includes all these things and theory, philosophy and activism often overlap. Chris Cuomo writes about the ecofeminist “project,” which I think is the most useful and appropriate way of describing it.6 Although Cuomo seems to be the only one using the word “project” within ecofeminist scholarship at the moment, I will be using it here.
Many different authors have summarized what they believe to be the key parts of ecofeminism; I have tried to compile those descriptions here in a much larger list. Some important themes in ecofeminism: 1) women either naturally or through social construction have roles that link them closer to nature than men, 2) women are disproportionately affected by environmental damage because of their subordinate position in society and/or roles that are more involved in nature than men, 3) women are underrepresented in groups that make decisions about environmental policy and resource use, 4) not only are women underrepresented in these groups but the decision-making processes and resulting policy are gendered and therefore inadequate, often make women invisible, and have harmful effects on all Others (including women), 5) there are certain traits and roles that have been constructed as feminine and masculine, and the masculine traits are usually privileged over the feminine ones, 6)all oppression is linked through a “logic of domination,”7 the underlying values in society that justify the domination of Others, and values the so called “masculine” traits and values, 7) different and diverse voices must be heard from within and outside of ecofeminism.
Ecofeminism can be frustrating because it is so decentralized and uncohesive. However, there is strength in ecofeminism’s constant shifting, growing and introspection, “ecofeminism is a viable movement because it does not, for all its attempts to do so, offer a single narrative of liberation.”8
History of Ecofeminism
Early ecofeminism emerged in the 1970’s and built momentum in the 1980’s and into the present.9 It was not until the late 1980’s and early 1990’s that books devoted to ecofeminist theory began to appear10 and that certain people began to refer to themselves as “ecofeminists.”11 Some of the most visible early ecofeminists include Petra Kelly, Ynestra King, Starhawk and Ariel Salleh. Feminists began addressing environmental destruction and its effects on women. Many ecofeminists abandoned the Green and deep ecology movements after frustration over the patriarchal nature of these male-dominated environmental movements.12 Grassroots women-led groups mobilized over environmental issues—like the Chipko movement in India where women in the village of Chipko prevented loggers from cutting down local forests,13 and the Mothers of East Los Angeles (MELA) in the United States who protested a proposed hazardous-waste incinerator near their community.14 The Women’s Pentagon Action in 1980 and 1981—a group of women who protested the Pentagon’s violent practices and links to environmental destruction and harm to women—is often cited as one of the early activities linked to ecofeminism under the leadership of Ynestra King.15 Sandilands writes that, “Ecofeminism’s genesis was in the politicization of the connections between environmentalism and feminism”.16 Ecofeminism came out of factors like these, defined in loose terms.
Adaptation and reflexivity are highly valued by ecofeminist scholars and so theory and practice are constantly changing. Of course, no discipline is static, but ecofeminism seems to be constantly morphing at a pace that is difficult to keep up with. Thus, ecofeminist literature from the 1980’s is different from current ecofeminist writing. It is important to note the contexts in which certain ecofeminist works have emerged. For example, Peter Hay writes that Australian ecofeminist Ariel Salleh’s early work is significantly different from her recent publications.17
Perhaps the most debated subtopic within ecofeminism is over essentialism and constructivism, although the die-hard ecofeminist essentialists seemed to have changed their minds or died, critiques of ecofeminism often make essentialism their main target. Essentialism is the idea that a group has an inherent set of traits, in the case of gender, biologically male and female humans are perceived as having specific roles and characteristics. For example, women may be seen as emotional and men as rational, or women may be seen as nurturing and men as destructive. Ynestra King, one of the most influential early ecofeminists wrote in 1989,
In the project of building Western industrial civilization, nature became something to be dominated, overcome, made to serve the needs of men. She was stripped of her magical powers and properties and was reduced to “natural resources.”18
In this quote (and much of her work), King refers to a romanticized, feminine nature. This kind of language reinforces the essentialization of gender.
Many ecofeminists, however, have rejected this form of essentialism. Lahar writes,
For ecofeminism to fulfill its promise as an emancipatory theory, we must be especially careful in accounting for traits that for complex historical reasons have become gender associated in our culture, even though these may at present describe collective norms.19
Lorraine Elliot identifies two main strands within ecofeminism, she uses Val Plumwood’s categories of cultural and social ecofeminism to discuss these strands. Cultural ecofeminism embraces essentialism whereas social ecofeminism rejects it.20 Cuomo writes that feminist ethics are not feminine ethics.21 She challenges any form of essentialism saying that it is always harmful and participates in the logic of domination.22
The Location of Women and the Environment
On one of the most difficult parts of ecofeminism, or anything dealing with sex and gender, is that when one speaks of women one refers to a general category. What is considered female is most often constructed and exceptions to these stereotypes are in abundance. Warren writes that there is no “pure gender,” that it is always in combination with factors like race, class, etc.23 However, there are many generalizations that can be made about the role of most women in the world today, especially if one considers that the majority of people live in Third World countries.
Women suffer disproportionately from environmental destruction compared with men, especially in the rural Third World. Third World rural women often have more direct contact with their surrounding natural environment. They are usually responsible for fuel collection, water collection, and at least half of the world’s farming is done by women24 (in Africa they produce at least 70% of the food25). In addition, these women in agriculture do not have access to the kinds of technology that men have due to biases in development projects and cultural taboos that do not allow women sufficient access to resources and credit. Thus women do more hands on work that has consistent and direct contact with the environment.26
Because women and children in all parts of the world spend more time at home they are more likely to be exposed to chemicals and indoor pollution. This is especially true in poor communities of color.27 And because women are more involved in household and family maintenance, they are more likely to notice environmental issues affecting their communities. Mary Mellor asks the important question, “Are women excluded from decision-making and put at the mercy of environmental forces as women or because they are overrepresented among the poor, the exploited and the colonized?”28 Ecofeminism would argue that both are true.
Western Patriarchy
Most ecofeminists identify patriarchy as the foundation for a system that has instigated the oppression of women and nature and all Others. Warren defines patriarchy as the
systematic domination of women by men through institutions (including policies, practices, offices, positions, roles), behaviors, and ways of thinking (conceptual frameworks), which assign higher value and privilege and power to men (or to what is historically male-gender identified) than to that given to women (or to what historically is female-gender identified).29
Peter Hay puts it a little more concisely, “Patriarchy is a gender-privileging system of power relations that is subtly embedded within dominant social structures, at all social levels, across almost all cultures, and sustained throughout most of history.”30 One of the underlying claims in ecofeminism is that because patriarchy devalues/values women and nature in the same way, oppression of women under patriarchy is linked to oppression of nature. Patriarchy may not be the perfect word to describe this illusive system that ecofeminists refer to. Janis Birkeland chooses to use her concept of the “Manstream” (a mutation of the word “mainstream”).31 This is the only other word that I have encountered that seems to cover the concept I am trying to name, however, I find this term horribly inappropriate in that it is highly likely to alienate men and many women. Therefore, I use the term “patriarchy” here, despite its imperfections.
When ecofeminists discuss the roots of patriarchy they often reference ancient Greek society, the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. They look to philosophers like Locke, Bacon and Marx to expose the masculine and destructive values inherent in early Western thought and society that today’s Western thought and society is still based on.
The key here is Western thought. While ecofeminists usually talk about patriarchy in general terms, what they are actually referring to is usually Western patriarchy. Patriarchy certainly exists in other cultures, as Hay writes, patriarchy is present “in almost all cultures.”32 However, not all patriarchies are naturist. As Huey li-Li writes about China and Lois Ann Lorentzen writes about indigenous people of Chipas, Mexico, patriarchy is not always linked to environmental destruction.33 In China patriarchy has oppressed women for millennia, but within ancient Chinese culture there has also been a predominant reverence for nature and the ability to live in harmony with it. In Chiapas, traditional male roles are associated with nature and female roles with culture,
This does not mean that women are not oppressed; it means that the culture/nature dichotomy does virtually nothing to illuminate this particular form of gendered oppression.34
Of course, there are many non-Western societies in which patriarchy traditionally manifested itself in both the oppression of women and the environment. For example, the case that chemical engineer Joseph Loer describes in rural Kenya, takes place in a patriarchal society and where women are linked directly to the environment.35 Ecofeminists must be aware of the cultural contexts for the systems and values they critique and patriarchy must be qualified by Western patriarchy if that is what the author is truly speaking to.
On the other hand, there are cases in which societies that may have not traditionally linked oppression of women with the oppression of the environment may do so now as a result of Westernization. Lorentzen describes how indigenous culture in Chiapas has traditionally considered men closer to nature than women, however, she points out that Western influences through sources such as tourism have shifted some of these traditional values in the region. Therefore, while ecofeminist analysis might not be applicable to traditional indigenous society in Chiapas, it may be applicable to contemporary society because of the importation of certain Western systems (such Western free-market economics through NAFTA).36
Ecofeminism is not always an appropriate tool with which to analyze every situation, but it appropriate when addressing the following three contexts: 1) patriarchy in Western culture, 2) patriarchy in non-Western cultures, 3) patriarchy that is present in non-Western cultures through Westernization.37 Therefore, ecofeminist discussions of Western patriarchy are still highly relevant to the Third World because it is often significantly affected by Western patriarchy through the processes of Western colonization, imperialism, development and globalization.
Warren identifies five features of the conceptual framework of patriarchy, which functions to explain and justify oppression and subordination: 1) value-hierarchical thinking, 2) oppositional value dualisms, 3) power is exercised through these dualisms so that power-over power is more valid than power-with power, 4) privilege, 5) the logic of domination, and 6) superiority, which is used to justify domination.38 Western society often relies on hierarchical structures and dualisms to determine what is valuable. For example, the world is perceived in sets of dualisms—man/woman, culture/nature, mind/body, reason/emotion. According to Mellor, “In these hierarchical relations women and nature are thrown into a contingent relationship as the despised and rejected by-products (or precursors) of ‘modernity.’”39 And Cuomo writes,
Ecofeminists are particularly interested in the ways oppression depends on hierarchical, dualistic thinking, and values that propagate the glorification of qualities supposedly ‘naturally’ held by those with economic, sexual, racial, hegemonic power.40
The logic of domination is one of Warren’s many concepts, it refers to the underlying structure of logic and values used to justify the oppression of anything, including women and the environment, in Western patriarchy.41 Women and men can both participate in and support the patriarchal system, but it is ultimately harmful towards all actors involved within it. This harm most explicitly affects Others, which include women and nonhuman others.
Western patriarchy is a broad term that encompasses many different sub-systems. Capitalist economics, science, development and government are some of the sub-systems in Western patriarchy that ecofeminists criticize. These systems are not worthless; they are one way of ordering a society. Unfortunately, they have often contributed to the subordination of many groups and have deeply embedded many destructive values within our relationships with humans and nonhumans. Ecofeminists have harshly criticized all these systems.
Many ecofeminists have criticized the effects of and philosophy behind capitalism. However, few have offered alternatives. Barbara Brandt is one ecofeminist who has in her book, Whole Life Economic and Vandana Shiva and Maria Mies suggest a “subsistence perspective” in their book, Ecofeminism.
Brandt writes that, “what we need today is not more economic success, but a new definition of what a successful economy can be.”42 She is concerned with two harmful aspects of the capitalist economy, economic addiction and economic invisibility. She explains that economic addiction is the belief that more is better and economic invisibility “refers to the fact that many activities essential for human’s well-being are not officially considered part of the economy.”43 These two aspects of the economic paradigm contribute to the domination of science and technology over nature, the valuing of quantitative measurement of qualitative, the valuing of larger things over smaller things, superiority of the masculine and domination by white, Western countries.44
Shiva and Mies connect what they call the “capitalist patriarchal world order” to the process of colonization, arguing that “This system emerged, us built upon and maintains itself through colonization of women, ‘foreign’ peoples and their lands; and of nature, which it is gradually destroying.”45 They propose a subsistence perspective in which humans live within the material limits of the planet because, “Freedom within the realm of necessity can be universalized to all; freedom from necessity can be available to only a few.”46
Western science is commonly targeted by ecofeminists, as we will explore in more detail in the next section. Briefly, science is criticized for its historical exclusion of Western perspectives and the desire to prove truths and facts through quantitative research. The objective view often claimed by science is far from objective and hosts hidden biases that are harmful to Others. Science has been accused of elitism and excluding alternative ways of knowing, such as intuition, experience and indigenous knowledge.
The development paradigm that solidified in the post-World War II era under the Washington Consensus and the Bretton Woods conference institutions has been a significant way in which Western patriarchal values have been transferred to Third World countries. Shiva and Mies are perhaps the loudest ecofeminist voices in critiques of development, which they argue leads to environmental destruction, exploitation of the Third World, violence against women and militarization of men.47
Development “was to have been a choice for accepting a model of progress in which the entire world remade itself following the example of the colonizing modern West without being subjugated to the subjugation and exploitation that colonialism entailed,”
However, it was instead “reduced to a continuation of the process of colonization.”48 Shiva also introduces her concept of “maldevelopment,” which is the “violation of the integrity of the living, interconnected world, and it is simultaneously at the root of injustice, exploitation, inequality and violence.”49 In addition, the language used in the development paradigm is permeated by masculinist language and action.50
In my experience, ecofeminists have not directly addressed Western government models as patriarchal. However, they have addressed the issue of who has power in Western patriarchy, which is easily applied to politics and government. Val Plumwood, Catriona Sandilands and Stephanie Lahar write some of the most insightful ecofeminist scholarship addressing politics. Sandilands proposes an alternative to a patriarchal global system through the concept of globalization from below.
Against those global visions compelling us toward a homogenous state—or market—dominated world system, globalization from below holds the promise of a locally based diverse democractic politics articulated through common resistance to a common antagonist—capital.51
In sum, Western patriarchy is a key factor in ecofeminist analysis because of its negative effects on women, nature and all Others. Mellor says it well when she writes,
Women—having been biologically, cosmically, or socially placed in a subordinated position alongside a devalued natural world within Western patriarchal dualist, socioeconomic structures—are better placed to see the way in which social relations have an adverse impact on the natural world than are men from their superordinate position.52
Ways of Knowing
Ecofeminists, like many feminists and ecologists, stress valuing new ways of knowing—a challenge to the traditional Western value of scientific knowledge. Traditional ways of knowing in Western patriarchal society are usually hierarchical, dualistic, and claim to be objective, rational and logical.
Modern science is projected as a universal, value-free system of knowledge which by the logic of its method claims to arrive at objective conclusions about life, the universe and almost everything.53
In the dualistic conception of what is masculine and what is feminine (note: a dualism), objectivity, rationality and logic are seen as masculine and subjectivity, irrationality and emotion are seen as feminine. Lahar criticizes this “abstract process of reasoning.”54 She calls for an alternative to the “classical Western, atomistic, materialist worldview” but warns against simply replacing it with a “holistic, idealist one.”55 Mies and Shiva also discuss a “cosmology and anthropology that structurally dichotomizes reality.”56 While this system, or cosmology and anthropology, is based on antagonism and competition, the ecofeminist perspective calls for a life based on cooperation and mutual care and love.57
In The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution, Carolyn Merchant identifies how the scientific revolution developed these traditional patriarchal values. She particularly highlights the philosopher Francis Bacon as one of the key people to construct an argument for the linking of women and the environment.58 Merchant’s book has been highly influential in ecofeminist literature and philosophy, and her analysis is often cited by other ecofeminists.59 However, there are clearly other factors throughout Western history that have shaped this traditional way of knowing, Cuomo is wise to point out though, that “of course, Baconian science did not occur in a social vacuum.”60
Ecofeminists support valuing non-traditional ways of knowing, but individual ecofeminists differ in which forms of knowing they advocate and how fervently they advocate them. The three ways of knowing that I have seen advocated for in ecofeminism are intuition, experiential and indigenous.
Intuition can be an important and accurate form of knowledge. It is also difficult to know when ignorance or prejudice is being represented as intuitive knowledge. Perhaps if intuition had not been marginalized in traditional Western ways of knowing, we would have more refined intuitive skills. Arguments for intuitive ways of knowing are probably more common in ecofeminist spirituality, however, my research neglected an in depth study of that branch of ecofeminism. Many of the authors I read who advocated for intuitive ways of knowing were not convincing. For example, Gladys Parentelli argues that,
In a Latin America that for five hundred years has been devastated again and again by wave upon wave of patriarchal powers, poor women have intuitively known how to save life from destruction and genocide.61
In this case, intuition is used to justify a huge and inaccurate generalization. In Charlene Spretnak’s article “Radical Nonduality in Ecofeminist Philosophy”, she argues for the acknowledgement of what she calls “unitive dimensions of being.” Spretnak is one of the earlier ecofeminists involved in ecofeminist spirituality, her “unitive dimensions of being” concept is suspiciously similar to many Buddhist ideas about the interconnection between all things and one’s ability to sense this interconnectedness. Spretnak comes across as a little pompous and self-isolating, but she makes an excellent point,
The cultural inheritance from the modern Western tradition clearly predisposes most contemporary philosophies to devalue organicism and nonduality as a rather immature and primary clinging to a failed romanticism that was properly displaced by various analytical orientations.62
Experiential ways of knowing are also highly valued in ecofeminism. Ecofeminists often call for a valuing of women as experts on their lives because of their lived experiences. For example, Vandana Shiva highlights how farmers in rural areas (who are often women) have spent centuries adapting the seeds they use through trial and error, but when professional scientists adapt those seeds genetically in a lab they can patent the seeds and make farmers pay extra for the new “value-added” to the seeds. In this case, Shiva argues, the expert knowledge that the farmers have developed about the seeds through their experiences is devalued.63
Indigenous knowledge is how an indigenous group understands its position in the world. For example, many indigenous groups in the Amazon region of Bolivia have developed a form of medicine over time that uses local plants and animals. Western scientists may also realize eventually that certain plants in the region have medicinal value, but the scientists will realize that through a traditional Western way of knowing, whereas the indigenous groups have already recognized those values. Thus, indigenous ways of knowing are also experiential. However, experiential knowledge can apply to an individual’s lived experience or to a group’s aggregate experience, often over long periods of time. Local knowledge is another form of experiential knowledge, and can also be indigenous knowledge. However, local knowledge is not necessary developed over time and can come out of individual and group experience.
Challenges to scientific and technological ways of knowing are needed, but often makes scientists uncomfortable. Which is understandable considering that some ecofeminists are do attack scientists rather harshly. Consider what Mies has to say,
modern natural scientists are mostly people incapable of relationships and love. The passion with which they pursue science s the ‘chaste’ passion mentioned by Bacon, but which I fact can only be sparked off by competitive pressure within the male confederacy and by a mania for omnipotence.64
However, ecofeminism need not entirely exclude traditional ways of knowing from its analysis. As Loer argues,
Though new ecological directions devoid of scientific understanding are limited, perhaps even threatening in their narrow-mindedness, a larger vision is also impossible through a narrow scientific approach.65
Mies and Shiva argue that science has a gender bias and rejects a dependence on the earth.66 Huey li-Li writes that science uses metaphors of women and nature that further exclude the feminine from science.67 Mies argues for a feminist research that investigates the world in a way that does not exclude women and other Others from the process and so that the results are accessible to all people and not just used by those in power to reinforce their dominant positions.68
Valuing new ways of knowing is important because it includes important contributions that have often been neglected, exposes the flaws in traditional (Western) ways of knowing, but also because it makes the issues addressed by ecofeminism more accessible to non-academic people. Jargon-laden science and philosophy, and academia in general, often seem only accessible to an elite group of “experts.” Ariel Salleh argues against the “philosophication” of ecofeminism, “a preoccupation with abstraction directly partakes of dominance-imbued, masculine modes of thought.”69 (It is worth noting that while Salleh has a good point, she probably makes it inaccessible with so many jargony words.)
Critiques of Ecofeminism
Most of the critiques of ecofeminism that I have read have focused on essentialism, cultural generalizations and rejections of science in ecofeminism. However, I believe that ecofeminists themselves are sufficiently aware of the dangers of essentialism and that most current ecofeminist scholars have much more sophisticated approaches to gender than their critics give them credit for. Many ecofeminists are also aware of the issues of cultural generalizations and a rejection of science, while these issues have not been as sufficiently addressed as essentialism has within the project.
Critics of ecofeminism often criticize ecofeminism for not addressing issues that are in fact already addressed in the project. For example, in her 2004 article, Bäckstrand claims that ecofeminism rejects science, and then argues that what is needed in science now is a renewed interest in citizen science, indigenous knowledge and local knowledge.70 However, Warren contradicts this claim throughout her 2000 book when she writes of that science is still important to ecofeminism and that there is a need for indigenous and local knowledge to balance scientific knowledge.71 It is likely that Bäckstrand, and many other critics of ecofeminism base their understandings of the ecofeminist project on only a handful of readings and thus are not aware of the broad spectrum of views and topics covered by the ecofeminists.
I have my own set of critiques of the ecofeminist project: the use of jargon, the prevalence of poor scholarship, a superficial understanding of history, cultural appropriation, the prevalence of middle-class white, Western scholars, the lack of recognition that most ecofeminism almost exclusively addresses Western systems, and the presence of heterosexism in a lot of ecofeminist work.
Traditional language in Western patriarchy is inadequate and thus, ecofeminists need new definitions and phrases. As Warren puts it so wittily,
One place one might expect gender-neutral language is in Western philosophy, with its historical focus on reason, truth objectivity and impartiality. Yet this is not the case.72
The danger in creating new language, though, is that in an effort not to fall into the traps of the logic of domination, ecofeminists often come up with inaccessible, polysyllabic words and phrases or ones that are aggressive towards men. For example, Warren consistently uses the phrase “women-other human Others-nature connections” in her book Ecofeminist philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and why it matter.73 Or, as was already mentioned, Birkeland uses the word “Manstream” to describe the patriarchal system,74 and Mies uses “colonies of White Man.”75 To other well-read ecofeminist scholars this new language may be acceptable, however, if ecofeminism aims to be inclusive, then ecofeminists must take care not to alienate people with confusing and ridiculous sounding language. On the other hand, perhaps some new language will seem ridiculous for a time and eventually come to be accepted and accessible.
Another major problem in ecofeminism is the prevalence of poor scholarship, at least in the works that we have read. While there are a handful of excellent ecofeminist scholars (including Chris Cuomo, Catriona Sandilands, Stephanie Lahar, Val Plumwood, Vandana Shiva, and Karen Warren), there are also many mediocre and just plain poor scholars as well. This may be because of ecofeminism’s relative youth as a project (it is only thirty-some years old) and/or its intent to include many different voices. As I discussed in the section on ways of knowing, ecofeminism wants to value other forms of knowledge. This may lead to the publication of works that are not academically sophisticated.
A striking example of poor scholarship is an article written by Andy Smith (who may or may not be an ecofeminist, but nevertheless wrote about ecofeminism in a book on ecofeminism), entitled “Ecofeminism through an anticolonial framework.”76 Smith’s article addresses how ecofeminism must speak to issues of colonization in order to be relevant to Amerindian women. This is a fine topic, however, Smith makes many generalizations about deep ecologists, Amerindian societies, ecofeminists, and “people” that are not cited and are misleading. For example, she explains several situations in which questionable forms of birth control have been aggressively marketed to women of color, and uses this as an example of how white American society does not value the bodies of women of color nor their sexuality. However, then Smith goes on to say that teenage pregnancy in pre-conquest Amerindian cultures was never a bad thing because the community took care of the child so that the new mother was not limited by motherhood. This claim seems unlikely and ridiculous, particularly since Smith does not cite any sources for such a claim and cannot possibly vouch for all pre-conquest Amerindian cultures just because she is a contemporary Amerindian woman. Smith’s article is the worst of the ecofeminist literature I have read, but her work is not isolated.
Many ecofeminist authors seem superficially and insufficiently recognize the historical situations that they refer to. Because the bulk of ecofeminist theory is based on the idea that Western patriarchy is unacceptable and prompts oppression and domination, it is necessary to analyze where Western patriarchy came from. Unfortunately, few ecofeminists have made attempts to delve deeply into the historical roots of the issues that ecofeminists address. Most ecofeminists refer to Greek society/philosophy, the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution (especially Francis Bacon’s writings as part of the Scientific Revolution) as the roots of Western patriarchy. Merchant’s book The death of nature, which was published in 1980,77 has been taken as the definitive historical analysis of the role of science in Western patriarchy by many ecofeminists. Merchant’s book certainly makes a significant contribution to ecofeminism, but it should not be the only source of historical analysis that ecofeminists draw on.
Another area in which historical analysis is lacking in ecofeminist literature is in the investigation of non-Western societies and cultures. For example, many ecofeminists refer to indigenous cultures and ways of knowing as alternative examples to Western patriarchy. However, indigenous cultures are not static and they are not unified. Within the United States there have been hundreds of different indigenous groups, not to mention in the world. We cannot assume that all indigenous communities have the same things to offer ecofeminism or that they are all aligned with ecofeminist goals in the first place. When ecofeminists refer to pre-conquest indigenous values, knowledge and cultures they need to be more specific about which indigenous groups they are referring to and how exactly that is important. Otherwise, such statements are ignorant, unintentionally disrespectful, and hardly useful.
In an effort to draw on sources other than Western cultures, many white ecofeminists have turned to indigenous cultures and spiritualities. Ecofeminist spiritualists like Starhawk have incorporated many aspects of Amerindian spiritualities into her new theology. Critics accuse some white ecofeminists of appropriating indigenous cultures and manipulating selective parts of these cultures for their own purposes.
Lorentzen also addresses the dangers of non-indigenous ecofeminists romanticizing indigenous and Third World women.78 However, there is also the danger of indigenous women romanticizing indigenous culture. Andy Smith writes that Indian societies were never male dominated and environmental destruction did not exist in the Americas before the arrival of white people.79 This is a simplistic, false statement.
On that same note, ecofeminist scholarship seems to still be more frequent among middle-class, white, Western women. The most notable exception to this is the Indian ecofeminist, Vandana Shiva. First of all, this lack of diversity is not surprising since middle and upper class, white, Western women are more likely to have access to education and the opportunities to be ecofeminist scholars than women who are not upper or middle-class, white, and Western. I will refer to middle-class, white, Western ecofeminists as “privileged” ecofeminists from here on. One of the few valuable points that Smith makes in her article is that ecofeminism must address its own dualism between theory and practice, between academics and community action. Only 3% of Amerindian women will ever attend college, writes Smith, this means that their voices are much less likely to be heard in Academia than the voices of white women.80 Therefore, if ecofeminism truly aims to incorporate diverse voices, it must listen to and seek out other sources besides official scholarship.
The issue of lopsided perspectives in scholarship is still present, though. Why is ecofeminism scholarship primarily made up of privileged women? How can this change in a way that ecofeminism belongs to all? The danger in privileged ecofeminists trying to incorporate voices with different perspectives into the project is that this presents the privileged women as the owners of the movement, the experts who invite a token Other to participate. As a middle-class, white, Western woman myself, I feel that any suggestions I might have for how to remedy this situation are insufficient because of my privileged position. The most important first step in addressing the prevalence of privileged women in ecofeminism is creating a dialogue on how many people want to address the issue. How do lesbians of color think this should be approached? How do Asian, disabled men think it should be approached? How poor, white, American women think it should be approached? Privileged women certainly should have a voice in this dialogue, but must take care not to be the only voices.
And finally, much ecofeminist scholarship has an unfortunate undercurrent of heterosexism. Clark Michael, who proposes a gay liberation eco-theology that builds off of ecofeminism, argues that “virtually all ecofeminist writers” have a heterosexist assumption that restricts them to male-female domination and omits GLBT oppression from their analysis.81 It is important to note that Michael wrote this in 1993, and many ecofeminist authors since then have written explicitly about the need for a “queer ecofeminism.”82 However, Michael’s point is still relevant today as is illustrated by Cuomo’s 2001 book review “Still fooling with mother nature.” Cuomo reviews two books, one written by Ariel Salleh (Ecofeminism as politics: Nature, Marx, and the postmodern)83 and the other by Catriona Sandilands (The good-natured feminist: Ecofeminism and the quest for democracy)84. Cuomo writes a scathing critique of Salleh’s book and an upbeat review of Sandilands’, however Cuomo writes that both authors do not provide complete analyses of queerness in ecofeminism85 and that Salleh’s is deplorable.
Salleh’s homophobic dismissal of radical queer theory is the logical result of armchair anthropology and a romanticization of gender-as-given that is transparent and can be rejected out of hand.86
This is not to say that all ecofeminists are heterosexist or homophobic. However, since ecofeminism discusses gender, especially traditional gender roles, it is dangerously easy to speak of women and men as heterosexual women and men, without ever explicitly acknowledging such a bias.
Ecofeminism has its many flaws as well as advantages. Cuomo’s doubts about the project resonate with me,
Although I’ve been attracted to thinking at the intersections of feminism and environmentalism for years, I hesitate to call myself an ecofeminist. Indeed, I prefer to think of my work as ecological feminism, in an effort to keep the emphasis on feminism, and also to distance my approach somewhat from other work done by self-titled ecofeminists. Though I share motivations with the authors of such work, I am sufficiently critical to be uncomfortable with the label.87
However, like Cuomo—and if it is not obvious by now, I admire her very much—I believe that, the ecofeminist project has much to offer and is a worthwhile endeavor.
References:
Bäckstrand, Karin. 2004. “Scientisation vs. civic expertise in environmental governance: Eco-feminist, eco-modern and post-modern responses.” Environmental Politics. 13(4): 695-714.
Birkeland, Janis. “Ecofeminism: Linking theory and practice.” In Gaard, Greta. 1993. Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Brandt, Barbara. 1995. Whole life economics: Revaluing daily life. Philadephia: New Society Publishers.
Cuomo, Chris.1998. Feminism and ecological communities: An ethic of flourishing. New York: Routledge.
Cuomo, Chris. 2001. “Still fooling with mother nature.” Hypatia. 16(3): 149-156.
Elliot, Lorraine. “Women, gender, feminism, and the environment.” In Lorentzen, Lois Ann and Turpin, Jennifer. 1996. The gendered new world order: Militarism, development and the evironment. New York: Routledge.
Erdmann, Saleha and MacWilliams-Brooks, Gloria. 24 January 2005. Personal Communication.
Northfield, MN.
Gaard, Greta. 1997. “Towards a Queer Ecofeminism.” Hypatia. 12(1).
Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminists in the Greens.” In Eaton, Heather & Lorentzen, Lois Ann. (Eds.) 2003. Ecofeminism and globalization: Exploring culture, context and religion. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Glazebrook, Trish. 2002. “Karen Warren’s ecofeminism.” Ethics and the environment. 7(2): 12-26.
Hay, Peter. “Ecofeminism.” In Hay, Peter. 2002. Main currents in western environmental thought. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Lahar, Stephanie. “Ecofeminist theory and grassroots politics.” In Warren, Karen. (Ed.) 1996. Ecological Femenist Philosophies. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
pp. 1-18.
Li, Huey-li. “A cross-cultural critique of ecofeminism.” In Gaard, Greta. (Ed.) Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature. Philadephia: Temple University Press. Pp. 91-117.
Loer, Joseph R. “Ecofeminism in Kenya: A chemical engineer’s perspective.” In Warren, Karen. (Ed.) (1997) Ecofeminism: Women, culture, nature. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Pp. 279-89.
Lorentzen, Lois. “Indigenous feet: Ecofeminism, globalization and the case of Chiapas.” In Eaton, Heather & Lorentaen, Lois Ann. (Eds.) 2003. Ecofeminism and globalization: Exploring culture, context and religion. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pp. 57-72.
Mack-Canty, Colleen. 2004. “Third-wave feminism and the need to reweave the nature/culture duality.” NWSA Journal. 16(3): 154.
Mellor, Mary. “Gender and the Environment.” In Eaton, Heather & Lorentzen, Lois Ann. (Eds.) 2003. Ecofeminism and globalization: Exploring culture, context and religion. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. pp. 11-22.
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The death of nature: Women, nature and the scientific revolution.
New York: Harper and Row.
Michael, Clark J. 1993. “From gay mens’ lives: Toward a more inclusive, ecological vision.” Journal of men’s studies. 1(4): 347.
Parentelli, Gladys. “Latin America’s poor women: Inherent guardians of life.” In Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1996. Women healing earth. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Plumwood, Val. 1995. “Has democracy failed ecology? An ecofeminist perspective.” Environmental Politics. Winter: 134-168.
Salleh, Ariel. 1997. Ecofeminism as politics: Nature, Marx and the postmodern. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Sandilands, Catriona. 1999. The good-natured feminist: Ecofeminism and the quest for democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Shiva, Vandana & Mies, Maria. 1993. Ecofeminism. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed Books.
Warren, Karen. 2000. Ecofeminist philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
|