Ecofeminism: Nurturing Mother Earth

"Ecofeminism offers radical alternatives for reconstituting life on Earth. We seek to conjure new post-patriarchal ways of being based in part on pre-patriarchal values that resurrect and restore our original profound oneness with nature. By reactivating the ancient spiritual power of the feminine principle and balancing it with the male principle, men and women together can abandon dualistic thinking, "grow up," and live as sensitive, mature human beings in harmony with other animals and nature." - Cathleen and Colleen McGuire in Eve Online

The history of human arrogance and disrespect for nature closely parallels the history of male arrogance and disrespect for women. Riane Eisler, in her classic "The Chalice and the Blade", describes the connection between women and the natural world in pre-historic times. Ecofeminism traces its roots to ancient worship of the Goddess in hunter-gatherer cultures, including the concept of Mother Earth as a provider and nurturer. Then, thousands of years ago, the partnership paradigm represented by the chalice was gradually replaced by the dominator paradigm represented by the blade (sword). Patriarchy developed roughly at the same time as agriculture and urbanization. Women became subordinated by men politically and religiously. Women were forced into the role of caring for husband and children (the "family") while men empowered themselves to deal with everything outside the home and family. The Goddess became associated only with human fertility and childbearing. In Christianity, Mary, though worshiped as the mother of God, was relegated as a mere mortal to a position distinctly below God the Father and God the Son. Men justified their dominance, independence, and power by claiming that they were the providers and that women were weaker and needed to be protected. With few exceptions, women have been forced into subordinate roles by most human cultures for millennia.

During the 20th century, many women began to fight against the androcentric paradigm, insisting on the right to own property, the right to vote, the right to hold any jobs, the right to any careers, and the right to equal pay for equal work. Feminism in many affluent countries paralleled in many ways the civil rights, peace, and environmental movements, bursting its bonds in the 1960s and 1970s. Now in most countries, though to various extents, women participate in business, political, and religious affairs. Feminism has become mainstream to the point where the word needs to be used less and less frequently.

Gradually through the 1980s, feminists who were also concerned with environmental issues developed an ecofeminist philosophy. Ecofeminism recognized the relationship between oppression of women and oppression of nature and expanded to see further interconnection with oppression by race and class. Women were in the vanguard of concern over effects of pollution on child and family health and of opposition to nuclear power. They saw the failure of capitalism and the global economy to deal with the issue of poverty and malnutrition. They opposed male-created social Darwinism (see the Ecojustice chapter). Ecofeminism recognized that most social problems are inter-related and complicated, so no simple solution exists to the problems created by human domination either over nature or over other humans.

Some ecofeminists argue strongly that environmental problems arise from androcentrism (male dominance) rather than from anthropocentrism (human dominance). Changing economic structure from one of dominance, exploitation, and waste requires the demise of patriarchy and its replacement with a system of cooperation, equality, respect, and nurturing both for people and nature. The paradigm shift involved in valuing females equally with males while respecting the differences, parallels exactly the paradigm shift involved in valuing nature (Earth, other species) equally with humans while still respecting the differences.

The Deep Ecology - Ecofeminism Debate

Ecofeminism developed simultaneously but independently of deep ecology through the 1980s. A significant debate occurred for a while between proponents of the two movements. Ecofeminists criticized deep ecology for being both anti-human and gender-neutral. Deep ecology was charged with failing to be concerned with human societal issues such as poverty, famine, child welfare, and the status of women, and failing to recognize the historical Earth-centered role of women. Furthermore, deep ecology was said to over-emphasize identification with the whole, the ecosphere, or the cosmos, while deprecating the concept of individualism and selfhood. It was also seen as a male-dominated movement that while preaching against anthropocentrism engaged in androcentrism. Although deep ecologists rebutted these various charges, the debate continued in universities and journals of philosophy and ethics.

In discussing this debate, Warwick Fox may have been the first to define the word ecocentrism. In his 1989 essay "The Deep Ecology Debate and Its Parallels", reprinted in Session's "Deep Ecology for the 21st Century", Fox states "I prefer to describe the kind of egalitarian attitude subscribed to by deep ecologists as ecocentric rather than biocentric (ital. au.)" because "ecocentric" applies to all Earth entities, rather than just living ones, and the Greek oikos, or "home", implies Earth-centeredness.

Over time, more and more women declared themselves to be deep ecologists, notably Joanna Macy, Ruth Rosenhek, Dolores LaChapelle, and Connie Barlow. Rosemary Radford Reuther's "Ecofeminism" essay at http://www.spunk.org/library/pubs/openeye/sp000943.txt says "Ecofeminism represents the union of the radical ecology movement, or what has been called 'deep ecology', and feminism." She goes on to say "In ecofeminist culture an ethic mutual interdependency replaces the hierarchies of domination as the model of relationship between men and women, between human groups and between humans and other beings."

Deep ecology has been infused with the concepts and importance of feminism and its issues. The Ecoshift movement has become more holistic, with recognition that we need many paths to achieve the fundamental goal of living more harmoniously with Earth's other beings and systems. Consequently the deep ecology-ecofeminism debate has gradually cooled down.

Commentary

Since its publication in 1990, the collection of writings in "Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism", edited by Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, has introduced readers, including me, to ecofeminist concepts. On the web, Cat McGuire's Eve Online web site provides a lengthier description of ecofeminism than this chapter and contains a number of essays, including her own "What is Ecofeminism Anyway?". The Ecofem.org web site, by Richard Twine, has commentary, links, and a very extensive bibliography. The Ecofeminist Philosophy Data Base contains even more extensive links to ecofeminist and related web pages. Ecofeminist Resources contains a remarkable list of books and links to many components of Ecoshift, but does not have any specific discussion of ecofeminism.

Ecofeminists like to mention that the philosophy has many facets or many varieties. In some ways these correspond to the many aspects of Ecoshift. Considerable differences exist within the overall general concept. Some ecofeminists relate closely to certain types of ecospirituality, such as shamanism, paganism, and Wicca (see the Ecospirituality chapter). Like deep ecologists some ecofeminists see death as part of natural cycles (see the Universe Story chapter). Many ecofeminists focus on issues related to ecojustice (see the Ecojustice chapter).

Ecofeminism remains outside the purview of most feminists, just as ecopsychology remains outside the purview of most psychologists. One issue is that the obvious duality of female-male leads to perceived duality in many other relationships that are actually continua. For instance, associating reason with male and intuition with female compares a continuum with a dichotomy, a range situation with an either-or situation. Ecofeminism separates itself from feminism partly in refusing to see a dichotomy where there really is a continuum of behavior. It denigrates the fundamentality of separation of one species (humanity) from all other species and systems (nature), and recognizes the interconnectedness and inherent value of all life. Ecofeminism relates social justice to the wellness of Earth. Furthermore, ecofeminists recognize that patriarchy is not the same as, nor inherent in, being male. Rather it is a learned behavior pattern that can be unlearned.

On the other side, androcentrism does not completely control the economic system and its impacts on Earth. Women are consumers too, and their choices of how to spend money play major roles in supporting the globalization of retail stores and the resultant burning of fossil fuels and destruction of species and ecosystems. Just as being female does not mean being feminist, being a feminist does not mean being an ecofeminist.

Discussions of ecofeminism, like that of deep ecology and ecopsychology, often seem to degenerate into academic debates about fine points of terminology and meaning. For one example of this see Richard Twine's 2003 article "Ecofeminisms in Process" under "e-journal" on the Ecofem.org web site. But over time, ecofeminists are realizing that the main goal is more important than specific differences, just as the many strands of this book converge into an Ecoshift movement. There is strength in respectful diversity as long as controversy over differences does not detract from the overall effort. Indeed, some writers, such as Melissa Leach (see her lengthy history of ecofeminism at http://www.siyanda.org/docs/leach_ecofeminist.doc), believe that the ecofeminist approach has run its course. The claim that women have a closer or special relationship with nature now seems narrow and unnecessary. Men and women are equally involved in transforming the relation of humanity to Earth.