Great Sources for Information on EcoFeminism:
Cuomo, C. (2002). On ecofeminist philosophy. Ethics & The Environment, (7)2, 2-11.
Gaard, G. (2001). Women, Water, Energy: An Ecofeminist Approach. Organization Environment, 14, 157. DOI: 10.1177/1086026601142002
Glazebrook, T. (2002). Karen Warren’s ecofeminism. Ethics & The Environment, 7(2), 12-26.
Goldstein, J. (2005). Ecofeminism in Theory and Praxis. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 17(4), 96-102.
Kovel, J. (2005). The ecofeminist ground of ecosocialism. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 16(2), 1-8.
Mud Girls. (2010). Webpage. Retrieved from http://www.mudgirls.ca.
Nanda, M. (2004/5). Eco-Spirituality, Neo-Paganism and the Hindu Right. Women & Environments International Magazine, 64/65, 19-22.
Nightingale, A. (2006). The nature of gender: work, gender and the environment. Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space, (24), 165-185.
Pandey, A. (2009). Greening Garhwal through stakeholder engagement: the role of ecofeminism,
community and the state of sustainable development. Webpage: Wiley InterScience, 12-19.
Salleh, A. (2006). Towards an Inclusive Solidarity on the Left: Editor’s Introduction. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 17(4), 32-37.
Cuomo, C. (2002). On ecofeminist philosophy. Ethics & The Environment, (7)2, 2-11.
Cuomo reviews and critiques Karen Warren’s book, Ecofeminism Philosophy (2000), in which Warren presents ecofeminism as “a general school of thought, though she also argues for a particular set of ecofeminist values, methodologies, and practices” (2). Cuomo praises Warren openly for her definition of ecofeminism and the metaphors that are inscribed to bring further illumination to the term. She does make the point that even though not every reader will be interested in each type of logic that Warren utilizes, the book’s structure makes it easy for reader’s to pick and chose which section they wish to focus on and the “unique contributions” make the effort of picking and choosing worthwhile (3). Cuomo does draw from her own understanding of ecofeminism and makes the point that ecofeminism it is not a theory of oppression. She critiques Warren’s tendency to define ecofeminism mostly in terms of oppression and the connections between different forms of domination rather than the connections that are formed between living things. Cuomo believes that answer lies within academy, “especially in terms of feminist theory, on one hand, and environmental ethics on the other” (7). Even though she critiques Warren on this point, she does praise her inclusion of “spirituality” and maintains that this broadens the concept and the understanding of ecofeminism. This article facilitates an understanding of some of Warren’s work and provides some alternate perspectives with Cuomo’s theories. However, even though Cuomo picks the “eco” out of ecofeminism, she does not take into account the impact of the language and the history of ‘feminism’ itself. Furthermore, her praise of Warren’s work allows it to be presented as the ultimate way of knowing. She does state that “it is the knowledge we need here and now” (11).
Gaard, G. (2001). Women, Water, Energy: An Ecofeminist Approach. Organization Environment, 14, 157.
Gaard advocates the study of nature (including humans) from an ecofeminist perspective. She provides case examples including Manitoba Hydro, Quebec Hydro, Sumas Energy plant and Columbia River dams to underscore her point, which is that dominant Euro-American culture has oppressed women and nature in the same manner. Gaard also presents definitions of environmental sexism, environmental racism and environmental classism.
First, she features Ecofeminism and the Master Model, which is when ecofeminism’s approach to environmental problems is based on the “premise that how we treat nature and how we treat each other are inseparably linked” (158). Gaard draws heavily from Plumwood’s (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature to support her interpretation of ecofeminism, being more complex than a series of binaries (male/female, culture/nature, etc).
Second, Gaard explores environmental sexism using various mythologies which portray women in connection to water, blood, darkness, birth and death. This cyclical approach to life and living was trumped by the Euro-American’s linear view, one which continuously exploits the water, land and its disempowered inhabitants, without restoration.
Third, Gaard reveals the choosing of non-Caucasian neighbourhoods and villages to erect energy plants, or to flood lands for damming, as examples of environmental racism. People of color in the USA and Aboriginal nations in Canada had their health, land and subsistence compromised. She argues that it is people from rural areas who suffer the consequences of flooding lands and damming, and all of this to sell and supply hydro-electric power. Gaard suggests that we ought to recognize mountains, rivers and forests as citizens of the earth in order to allow humans to establish a holistic foundation for creating infrastructural change. She supports a shift to Buddhist eco-spiritual principles, as she believes them to underpin the ecofeminist social movement.
Glazebrook, T. (2002). Karen Warren’s ecofeminism. Ethics & The Environment, 7(2), 12-26.
Glazebrook critiques Warren’s theory of ecofeminism and several pieces of Warren’s writing to address several issues and theories that surround her thinking in regards to ecofeminism. Glazebrook begins by looking as far back as Simone de Beauvoir’s writing in 1952 to lightly trace the history of Ecofeminism and the development of the theories and philosophies that surround the concept. Glazebrook draws attention to Warren’s argument for “transformative feminism”, within which Warren makes connections between many forms of oppression. She maintains that this type of feminism is directed at a “broader social change” (16) and believes it to be highly useful in drawing connections between the environment and feminism. Glazebrook questions Warren’s theories on ‘male-dominated’ forestry practices and environmental health risks that disproportionally affect women, but maintains that Warren provides empirical data to support her theories. She states that this data supports the ecofeminist issues “that reflect global awareness and cross-cultural conscience” (19). However, Glazebrook draws concern to Warren’s support of ecofeminist spiritualities and suggests that it has been accused as being “essentialist” and “irrational” (19). However, in response to other critiques, Glazebrook points out that Warren has asserted that ecofeminism is itself a theory and that spirituality allows needed reflection and that she calls her essentialism “strategic” (200). Glazebrook’s final point focuses on ecofeminism as a challenge to traditional philosophy. She states that Warren’s “ecofeminist message is thus a challenge to the very core of philosophy, to the scientism that underwrites modernity, and to the patriarchal tradition that is the history of the west” (24). Glazebrook’s critique of Warren’s theories and writings gives a deeper understanding to ecofeminism and four possible areas of tension that can be found within the concept.
Goldstein, J. (2005). Ecofeminism in Theory and Praxis. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 17(4), 96-102.
Goldstein reviews Godfrey’s 2005 article Diane Wilson vs. Union Carbide: Ecofeminism and the Elitist Charge of ‘Essentialism’, which is about a fisherwoman’s response to Formosa Plastics expansion plans deemed ecologically harmful in San Antonio Bay, CA. Goldstein articulates ecofeminism in reference to the essentialist critique of ecofeminism itself as a postmodernist’s choice to focus on discourse in lieu of content, in this case. Diane Wilson felt such a deep bond with the San Antonio Bay that she was willing to stake her life on it.
Goldstein also draws attention to Godfrey’s omission of any discourse about ecofeminist heterogeneity, even calling it “sleight of hand”. With regards to ecosocialism, Goldstein argues that it is differentiated from ecofeminism as it treats gender as a “secondary concern” (98). She contends that ecofeminism enhances ecosocialism by “incorporating an analysis of gender relations (99) into the discussion. Goldstein draws attention to Ariel Salleh’s contention that women are a natural resource (W = N). She proposes that women and nature are treated the same way by the current dominant Euro-American patriarchal capitalist approach to limitless development, driven by the desire for economic domination. Without considering social re-production risks as an inescapable part of production, a one-sided Marxist interpretation remains, thus sublimating gender considerations within ecosocialism. The formula looks like this: ecofeminism = ecosocialism + a feminist Marxist critique. Finally, Goldstein references Adorno’s (1973) concept of negative dialectics and identity/non-identity. She locates the ecofeminist lens for us to view Diane Wilson’s commitment to nature equal to commitment to family, an ecocentric commitment based on life-centered principles. Goldstein suggests that this analysis provides a framework which can be used as a model in the future “anti-capitalist struggle” (102).
Kovel, J. (2005). The ecofeminist ground of ecosocialism. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 16(2), 1-8.
Kovel’s article is an exploration of the ties which bind ecofeminism and ecosocialism. In essence, he proposes that true ecosocialism cannot truly emerge without incorporating an integrated ecofeminist consideration. He describes the Capitalism Nature Socialism (CNS) journal as being predicated on rethinking the fundamentals of our human existence and our relationship with Nature. CNS’s worldview is described as ecocentric, “grounded in the desire to preserve the integrity of life” (1). Kovel describes ‘second epoch’ socialism as the antithesis of capitalism, which has lead to ecosocialism, the perspective humanity needs to embrace in order to survive.
Ecofeminism is presented as an essential component of Ecosocialism, so much so that Kovel advocates that ecosocialism could not move forward without it. He raises the issues of gender bifurcation, contextualizing it as differentiated by Nature. Kovel goes on to detail the hierarchy of Man, Woman and Nature, with the both Woman and Nature in subjugated roles to Man. This argument supports the fundamental premise of ecofeminism: women and nature have historically been devalued and oppressed by patriarchy. This remains true to this day.
Kovel cautions that the experience of an Asian woman expatriated from her rural homeland will be significantly different than that of the bourgeois feminist. Oppresion takes on a more tangible meaning in the case with the Asian woman. Kovel succinctly articulates that society needs to understand the connection between how it treats both women and nature. This transformation can be spurred through an ecofeminist-based perspective, solidly grounded in ecosocialist theory and praxis. Kovel concludes that both nature and women can be freed by adopting this perspective.
Mud Girls declares itself to be “a network of women who build natural structures for ourselves and each other, as well as helping others build their own, and sharing natural building skills through affordable workshops.” Mud Girls website is in full colour and has several links to pages that focus on workshops, Cob, and various building structures. The workshops themselves are advertised as being run by women, indeed “a women collective”. However, it is also clear that there are mixed gender workshops offered. The website does make is explicit that the workshops are open to anyone of any financial or physical ability, and does include price quotes for various workshops. Further, the site provides a clear Mission Statement and several Guiding Principles. It is unclear how they would support someone who wished to join or participate in a workshop who was not able-bodied or financially able. The pictures that are included do not show women of easily identifiable, varying levels of ability, nor do they show more than one or two men participating. It is difficult to see how inclusive this group is or can be through what is shown on the website. The name, Mud Girls, is advertised throughout the website and brings up concerns of perpetuating images of females who are not strong and independent, but are rather young and inexperienced. Perhaps using the term “Girls” is a way of reclaiming an aspect of femininity and strength, as it could be seen in conjunction with physical labour. Mud Girls website does speak to the theory of ecofeminism as it draws the connection between feminism and environmental sustainability. However, what is represented to be ‘feminist’ on the site, does seem to be limited to a few generalizations.
Nanda, M. (2004/5). Eco-Spirituality, Neo-Paganism and the Hindu Right. Women & Environments International Magazine, 64/65, 19-22.
Nanda’s article offers a unique perspective on ecospirituality and religious environmentalism. This article situates the reader in India, introducing Vandana Shiva, who is said to lead an ecofeminist and/or ecospiritual political movement in the face of unsustainable and environmentally sexist practices. Nanda maintains that there exists unapparent, yet profound, connections between the religious Hindu right in India, neo-paganism and its relation to eco-spiritualism.
Nanda invites the reader to rethink the premise of environmentalism as a non-sacred practice. She presents a more politically ambitious position regarding ‘environmental action’ in India, such as with religious right-nationalists and materialist ecofeminists, such as in the Chipko case. Nanda puts forth the ‘tree hugging’ in the Chipko case was more politically motivated than environmentally driven.
She also highlights the work of Vandana Shiva and sets her as the exemplar of ecofeminist and ecospiritualist practice. However, she cautions that Shiva may have reached a ‘cult status’ among her followers and that the proponents of Dharmic Ecology have appropriated her as one of their own. Nanda warns that religious environmentalism must be viewed with a critical eye, thus establishing an end goal to have a secular environmental movement. The risks of the Hindu-nationalist right appropriation are reduced by removing the blanket of sacredness from the environmental movement,. This article bridges the environmental left with the Hindu-nationalist right, drawing attention to the intention behind the `environmental` action, cautioning the reader not to assume that all environmental acts are based on the sacrosanctness of nature, but also on the human desire for power and money.
Nightingale, A. (2006). The nature of gender: work, gender and the environment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, (24), 165-185.
Nightingale discusses the production of social inequalities and environments by focussing on gender and other forms of difference and how they become part of environmental issues (165). She begins by tracing the contributions and the limitations of previous, essentialist thinking about gender and the environment, citing such work by Shiva (1998), Griffin (1978), Warren (1987) and Argwal (1992). She asserts that gender needs to be regarded as a process if one is to understand the role it plays in the environment. Nightingale highlights her belief that “there is a need to examine not only how gender roles change, but also how gender as a socially constructed concept is reinscribed by struggles over resources” (170) and provides her case study of a community forestry in Nepal to bring together her concept of the connections between gender and ecology. Through her study of caste, gender, and class and the community debate over leaf-litter gathering in the village (deemed to be women’s work), Nightingale makes the claim that gender as a process means that gender relations need to be analyzed as a cause and consequence of environmental issues (171). Nightingales article is concise and informative. It clearly reviews the history of ecofeminism and the concept of gender. She criticize the division of the caste system as she likens it to what Butler calls ‘ambivilance’ or the process by which the subject if both a product of and a resistance to subordination (1997). Furthermore, Nightingale openly admits that her presence gave some of the women the authority to challenge another caste of women. This may have created a space and situation that may not have happened otherwise, but she still uses it to cement her point.
Pandey, A. (2009). Greening Garhwal through stakeholder engagement: the role of ecofeminism, community and the state of sustainable development. Webpage: Wiley InterScience, 12-19
The purpose of Pandey’s paper is to highlight the role of ecofeminism in order to illuminate the role that community has in environmental sustainability and to draw attention to, and caution against, the approach of creating a division of an “evil” state and a “good” civil society. Pandey uses the case-study of human and non-human life in Garhwal Himalayan region of India (chosen because it is the land of “Chipko”, an icon of ecofeminism movement) to highlight the “need to involve the state in sustainable development for long-term success and results” (12). She begins by outlining the traditional forms of community forest management and compares it to the expropriation of forests by the state. However, she does caution against using binary terms, such as terming all that is ‘traditional’ is ‘good’ and all that is ‘modern’ is ‘bad’. Pandey outlines how the women within Garhwal took up key initiatives in defence of ‘their’ forests and used political power to challenge patriarchy and the destruction of the forests. She makes the point that gender equality was possible through a reformed government. Further, Pandey makes the statement that women “want their voices heard and demand a share in the decision-making affecting their lives and their forests”. She maintains the civil society and state are both necessary to maximize the benefits of development; however, the key to success is democratizing the state. Her point remains that ecofeminism reveals the crucial role that community plays in sustainable development. Finally, she proposes that “we need to imagine a new kind of state, one that is a ‘civic state’, which is democratized to the very grassroots.
Salleh, A. (2006). Towards an Inclusive Solidarity on the Left: Editor’s Introduction. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 17(4), 32-37.
Salleh authors this introduction to a series of articles included in the Symposium: Ecofeminist Dialogues. In her editorial, Salleh suggests that an a relationship between ecosocialists and ecofeminists would be “a praxis spanning three moments: acknowledgement, engagement and re-conceptualization” (33).
She offers a thematic overview of ecofeminist literature, drawing mainly from a 2005 Symposium in Toronto where 6 ecosocialists commented on 6 ecofeminists work, having the latter provide rejoinders, clarifying any misconceptions or lack of clarity in their work. Themes which emerged were subsistence, accumulation, the body, labour and class, dialectics and materialism.
Maria Mies exchanged commentary about her “Questioning the Subsistence Perspective” submission while Robert Chapman is amidst Accumulation discussions. Federici’s publication “Struggle for the Rebel Body” is clarified by Engel-Di Mauro’s understanding that gender needs to be integrated into class analysis versus simply being considered an ‘add-on’ (34). Turner and Brownhill’s “We want our land back” article enlivens the Labor and Class theme by providing acute context to the realities of too many African women. Goldstein and Gidfrey have an opportunity to clarify any dialectical misconceptions in the ‘Diane Wilson’ article. Finally, even Salleh’s own points on Materialism are countered.
It is through dialogue that diverse interpretations of ecofeminism and ecosocialism can come together, sharing the mutual goal of political integration while maintaining “cultural and biodiversity” (33). Salleh concludes the article with poignant questions for reflection, including:
“Is ecofeminism a particular social movement or a universal `class analysis`?” “Is ecofeminism about ‘feminine difference’ or resourcing accumulation?” “What is the economic function of ‘woman = nature’ metaphors?” and “Can ecosocialism be reconciled with cultural diversity and ‘ecocentric’ values?” (36) Capitalism Nature Socialism journal provides space for dialogues on Ecofeminism and Ecosocialism to take place.
No comments:
Post a Comment