By Ethan Kelner, Rylie Neely, Alex Preso, and Hannah Van Dusen
In this post, we use the word, “nature,” often, and in aiming to make our post as clear as possible, we wanted to address this by defining exactly what we mean when we use this word. Within the context of our post, the word “nature,” encompasses both the physical aspects of a community: animals, plants, air, water, and land and also the emotional and spiritual ties that surround the word “nature.”
Definition
Ecofeminism “links feminism with ecology. It advocates that paternalistic [and] capitalistic society has led to a harmful split between nature and culture” (Wikipedia). Ecofeminism advocates for the eradication of the oppression of women, of other social groups, and of the environment. Ecofeminism believes that all groups have been colonized and dominated by a society that serves to give men power. The Ecofeminist perspective sees that characteristics such as caregiving and nurturing have been imposed on women and nature, equating traditional feminine qualities to the natural world. Although Deep Ecology and Classic Ecofeminism share similarities including biospheric egalitarianism and decentralization, Deep Ecology is anthropocentric, whereas Ecofeminism is male-centric. The first wave of Ecofeminism related women to the “solution” to repairing nature.
“Ecofeminism is a movement that sees a connection between the exploitation and degradation of the natural world and the subordination and oppression of women. It takes from the green movement a concern about the impact of human activities on the non-human world and from feminism the view of humanity as gendered in ways that subordinate, exploit and oppress women.”– From the introduction to “Feminism & Ecology” by Mary Mellor, New York University Press 1997, p.1
Ecofeminism is a movement that combines aspects of the feminist and environmental movements but also challenges the ideas of both.
Today there exist two very distinct classes of Ecofeminism: Classic and Contemporary. These are differentiated in their objectives, definitions, and the points of view from which their thoughts stem. Classic Ecofeminism, while still supporting the liberation of women in accordance with the environment, is critiqued as simplistic and essentialist, and has received criticism for reinforcing stereotypical gender roles. Yet Contemporary Ecofeminism, or feminist ecocriticism, critiques the aforementioned Essentialism of Classic Ecofeminism, focusing more on interconnected solutions and problems regarding the domination of women, minorities, and the natural world.
Context
The term “Ecofeminism” came about in the 1970’s with the development of written environmental works by writers like Henry David Thoreau, Aldo Leopold, and Rachel Carson. Aldo Leopold’s essay “Land Ethic” looks at nature from a different perspective, choosing to view humans as equal to and in relation to all other non-human aspects of the community, including air, plants, animals, water, and land, instead of in domination of it. His writing framed environmentalism through a lense of caring and of compassion to all parts of a community. In Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, she describes a fictional but gripping world where birds no longer fly in the sky and fish no longer populate the streams. Her book reached out to people all over the country and sparked a need for change in the current world order of unrestrained development and lack of environmental consciousness. These influential writers brought movements in regards to environmentalism, ethics, conservation, and equality to the forefront of society’s attention, catalyzing great change among society as well as classic and contemporary environmental thought in the 20th century.
Early Ecofeminists advocated that the divide between humans and the natural world could only be healed by the feminine instinct to nurture and through a comprehensive knowledge of various natural processes. Modern Ecofeminism, also known as Feminist Ecocriticism, or Contemporary Ecofeminism, renounces this simplistic Essentialism and chooses to focus more on intersectional questions. These types of topics include discussion as to how the nature-culture split contributes to the oppression of both nonhuman and female bodies.
Ecofeminism recognizes the intersectionality between many oppressed groups and situations in the world’s environmental issues. It examines human’s need to control nature in correspondence to the domination of women by men, of marginalized races by whites, and of the poor by the elite. These power differentials and the need for dominance occur over a broad spectrum of situations today, and Ecofeminism recognizes that the deconstruction of oppression means the elimination of domination over oppressed people and the environment. “Instead of striving to make women equal in a man’s world or to prioritize the environment in a society that values consistent and extreme development, Ecofeminism highlights what a new world order would look like with man and woman, human and the planet, all respected and contributing on an even playing field.” (What is Ecofeminism 2017)
The term “Ecofeminism” was most commonly used in the 1990’s and has declined in use since the turn of the century. This “ism” has lost popularity due to the negative connotation that surrounds its use. This connotation can be traced to the use of Classic Ecofeminism, which used a theme of Essentialism to divide men from women as separate parts of the issue. The results of this connotation affected the use of Ecofeminism can be seen by examining Google Trends and Ngram Viewer’s analysis of search frequency of the term “Ecofeminism” over time. This data reveals that interest in this term has been trending towards decline since 2004.
Additionally, since 2004, this Google data reveals that interest in Ecofeminism has come from Canada, the United States, and India, showing that this is not a very global movement.
The reason for this downward trend is discussed in the critique.
Critique
There is a lot of criticism surrounding the term “Ecofeminism.” The Ecofeminists of the 1980’s consisted of a multitude of perspectives and rally groups all defined under the same term of Ecofeminism, which included social, cultural, spiritual, and socialist ideals. These various viewpoints lead to an ambiguous categorization of conflicting definitions, which divided the movement and lead to an overall decline of Ecofeminism.
The major critique of the early movement came from the Socialist Ecofeminists, claiming that the Ecofeminist movement was centered around Essentialism. “For social and Socialist Ecofeminists who wish to transcend traditional stereotypes of women that naturalize their nature in terms of biology, Essentialism in cultural Ecofeminism poses serious problems” (Carlassare, 1994). Ecofeminist Essentialism, or Classic Ecofeminism, believes that women are inherently more connected to the natural world than men. Ecofeminist critiques have said that this Essentialism and simplistic lense places women back into traditional patriarchal roles of caregiving and nurturing (Glazebrook, 2002). Many feminists and Ecofeminists are quick to critique Essentialism because of the fear that essentialist perspectives of women will reinforce patriarchal views of women. Contemporary feminists and environmentalists have been timid to adopt the title of Ecofeminist because of its essentialist stigma of the 1990’s, and are instead opting for movements such as Ecological Feminism, Critical Feminist Eco-socialist, or Feminist Environmentalism (Gaard, 2011).
Ariel Salleh, a Feminist Eco-socialist writer, and activist, wrote essays on the exploitation of labor focusing on the abuse of women’s bodies. As an original signatory of the “Ecosocialist Manifesto,” Salleh was one of the socialist critics of Ecofeminism. As a Marxist feminist, she further cites the oppression of female labor through their physical bodies and mental emotions. In “The Ecofeminism/Deep Ecology debate: a reply to Patriarchal reason,” she establishes the three pillars of the Classic Ecofeminism of the 1980’s and 1990’s. The three pillars include “establishing the right of women to a political voice;” to dismantle the “relation of man to nature” in order to undermine patriarchal political power; and to demonstrate “how women have been able to live differently in relation to nature” (Salleh, 1992). Although Salleh’s Ecofeminism drew on some concepts of Deep Ecology, she also critiqued patriarchal characteristics of the Deep Ecology movement. Contemporary Ecofeminism and Deep Ecology converge in their intersectional and multileveled approach to environmentalism and their criticism of “rights-based reform,” but Salleh claims that the two movements diverge in their power structures. Salleh critiques the early Ecofeminist movement as only acting as a part of Deep Ecology.
Glazebrook and Salleh claim that the spiritual Ecofeminism use characteristics of women and nature that stem from patriarchal values. The critique of Classic Ecofeminism focuses on its essentialist nature. Contemporary Ecofeminism is wary of the essentialism in Classic Ecofeminism because it propagates the patriarchal construction of a woman’s character as a nurturer.
Conclusion
Classic Ecofeminism paints women as “closer” to nature than men, therefore resulting in a stronger connection to the environment and environmental issues than men. This essentialist point of view created a vast division among scholars who disagreed over the meaning and motives of Ecofeminism. On the other hand, Contemporary Ecofeminism advocates for equality of men and women, of race, of nature and humankind, and for all oppressed groups across the board. It recognizes the interconnectedness of oppression and dominance in society in accordance to that of nature and the environment and looks to a world not defined by these power differentials.
Contemporary views of Ecofeminism were quick to critique the spirituality that Classic Ecofeminism derived from the connection between women and nature. In her 1994 essay “Essentialism in the Ecofeminist Discourse,” Elizabeth Carlassare warned against marginalizing cultural and spiritual Ecofeminism. Even though Classic Ecofeminism receives a large amount of the criticism, she warns us against being too quick to latch on to this Contemporary Ecofeminism, and keep several of the Classic’s ideals in mind as well. New wave Ecofeminism should be critical of the Essentialism that was part of the old Ecofeminism, but with that critique, they should not alienate other Ecofeminist perspectives.
Due to the negative connotation associated with Classic Ecofeminism, the use of this “ism” has declined considerably in the last decade. However, in consideration of these two distinct types of Ecofeminism, our group advocates for the support and use of Contemporary Ecofeminism among environmentalists, scholars, and people. Classic Ecofeminism is simplistic, essentialist, and makes the claim that women are inherently closer to nature than men, reinforcing gender stereotypes. Contemporary Ecofeminism advocates for the liberation of women from men in accordance with nature from mankind. Keeping this contemporary version’s objectives in mind, our group supports and advocates for the use of Contemporary Ecofeminism.
References
Glazebrook, Trish. “Karen Warren’s Ecofeminism.” Ethics and the Environment 7, no. 2 (2002): 12-26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40339034.
Gaard, Greta. “Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-Placing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism.” Feminist Formations 23, no. 2 (2011): 26-53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41301655.
Carlassare, Elizabeth. “Destabilizing the criticism of essentialism in ecofeminist discourse∗.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 5, no. 3 (1994): 50-66.
Salleh, Ariel. “The ecofeminism/deep ecology debate.” Environmental Ethics 14, no. 3 (1992): 195-216.
“What Is Ecofeminism?” 1 Million Women. Accessed March 20, 2017. http://www.1millionwomen.com.au/blog/what-ecofeminism/.