Ecological Feminism- a Review....

It is within this strand of ecofeminist discourse that the ten articles of Karen Warren’s anthology (which is self-consciously proffered as ecofeminist philosophy) may be said to reside. While perhaps not ideal as an introductory text to the main tenets of social ecofeminism (readers may wish to consult Plumwood 1993), “Ecological Feminism”, nevertheless illustrates the richness and sophistication of current debate. It will thus be of interest to academics and students of emancipation alike. Herein the reader finds a widespread challenge to andro- and anthropocentric philosophical discourse, as well as a diversity in political and theoretical dialogues.

For example, the first article: “Is Ecofeminism Feminist?” by Victoria Davion, provides an important bridge between feminism and ecofeminism. Davion begins by reviewing ecofeminist critiques of environmental ethicists whom have theorised respect for nature through a Kantian, dualistic lens, privileging an abstract rationality whilst negating the ‘personal’ and ‘emotional’ as important to moral theory. Davion then employs this negation of values associated with hegemonic femininity as a springboard into a discussion of ecofeminist positions which have formulated the response to such masculinist and dualist positions as a straightforward reversal and celebration of the ‘feminine’. Davion offers an important critique of what she names as ‘ecofeminine’ rather than ‘ecofeminist’ positions. Specifically she is critical of the way in which these positions suggest a monolithic femininity, universally possessed by all ‘women’ providing an essentialist passport to epistemic privilege between ‘women’ and ‘nature’. Davion cautions that such positions may actually lead to anti-feminist conclusions. In contrast she echoes Plumwood (1993), in advocating a re-formulation of dualistic praxis, rather than a re-valuation of the culturally devalued sphere.

Douglas Buege’s article places the reader within the refreshing territory of a male ecofeminist mounting a lucid defence of ecofeminism. Sharply entitled “Rethinking Again”, Buege is concerned to critique social ecologist, Janet Biehl’s wholesale dismissal of ecofeminism which appeared in her “Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics” (1991). As Buege conveys, Biehl’s text was ironically guilty of homogenisation, a feature of the very dualisms which ecofeminists are so correctly critical of. More precisely, Biehl took some problematic ecofeminist statements and portrayed them as being indicative of ecofeminism as a whole. Buege justifiably levels the accusation of misrepresentation at Biehl.

In “The Ecopolitics Debate and the Politics of Nature” Val Plumwood argues that other radical ecologies, in particular, ‘social ecology’ and ‘deep ecology’ have consistently failed to offer an effective liberatory theory which may be employed in an oppositional practice against both the domination of human and nonhuman nature. Importantly Plumwood points out the way in which forms of colonisation re-surface within oppositional praxis. Specifically the reductionism of creating a hierarchy of oppressions, as in the class-reductionism of Marxism. By employing the example of Tasmania, Plumwood illustrates the mutuality of human (the indigenous Aboriginal population) and nonhuman (Tasmania’s seal population) domination in the context of colonialism. Both groups were instrumentalised and classified as ‘irrational’, ‘uncivilised’ ‘nature’. Plumwood then puts work into the feminist representation of oppression as a ‘web’ - a strong and interconnected structure which maintains human and nonhuman hierarchy. She convincingly argues for the pressing need to creatively establish coalitionary (connected yet distinct) oppositional praxis.

In “The Limits of Partiality” Kathleen and David Johnson question both the ecofeminist critique of rights theory, as well as the contextualised ethic of care ventured by some eco/feminists. In my view they fail to convincingly argue that a rights-based theory is sensitive to either context or difference. Moreover, I am not sure they assist their argument by employing the philosophical ‘ethical dilemma’ cliché; in their case pondering the rights of the cancer cell. They further display a complicity with mainstream philosophical discourse by arguing within an ‘ontology of objecthood’, rather than naming this as an ideological construct. But perhaps most surprisingly Johnson & Johnson, in their search to justify their own environmental ethics, conclude that humanity has merely “taken an intolerably narrow view of these objects potential ‘usefulness’” (p.112). A bizarrely anthropocentric conclusion.

For the most part, though, I found this collection illustrative of what the editor has previously referred to as the ‘power and promise of ecofeminism’. Warren herself contributes an article applying an ecofeminist perspective to peace studies, concentrating on one notion of violence as ‘resourcelessness’. Whilst the causes of violence are multi-faceted, the anti-dualist liberatory theory of social ecofeminism could certainly contribute to current debates over gun control in the UK. I am thinking here specifically of Conservative politicians criticising Dunblane parents for being ‘too emotional’. Moral choices, as ecofeminists know, require a reformulation and intertwining of the ‘rational’ and the ‘emotional’.

Christine Cuomo contributes an astute article on the issue of Human Population which attains a level of depth in its appreciation of complexity, surpassing the typically shallow and insensitive treatment of the issue within deep ecology. The remaining articles of this anthology give credence to the belief that ecofeminism is increasingly a self-confident and self-reflexive - though sadly ‘under-read’ - liberatory theory. The only reservation one may venture is that in specifically demarcating a philosophical ecological feminism, the dualism of theory/practice threatens to detract from the activist focus of ecofeminism. This is a danger of academic colonisation which I am sure the contributors to “Ecological Feminism” are aware of.

If you want to source this review it appears in the August issue of the journal 'Environmental Values', which is Volume 6, No.3, 1997, pp.370-371.

References

Biehl, J (1991) Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics Boston, MA. South End Press

Plumwood, V (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature London Routledge