1
Introduction:
My journey as a vegetarian ecofeminist began when, as a freshman in high school, I
watched a video about factory farming conditions published by People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PETA). The violence inflicted on cows, chickens, and pigs was deeply disturbing.
That evening I remember rejecting the dinner my mother had prepared. The meat on my plate
was no longer an object for my consumption; I realized it used to be a living, breathing, sentient
being. From that evening on I have identified as a vegetarian, and for the past eight years I have
rejected the consumption of meat, and, most recently, all animal products. Junior year of college,
I stumbled upon the concept of vegetarian feminism while compiling information for a research
paper on the Animal Liberation Movement; I found Carol J. Adam’s texts The Sexual Politics of
Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. Adam’s book helped connect my feminism and
vegetarianism. Through vegetarian ecofeminism, I became aware that my eating habits are a
feminist concern, that all axes of oppressions are deeply interconnected, and the incompleteness
of theory if feminists and vegetarians do not listen to one another. Vegetarian ecofeminism has
enabled me to envision a new reality, new possibilities, and new ways of living.
While my journey began eight years ago, vegetarian ecofeminism began in the 1970s
when ecofeminist theory emerged as a combined movement of environmental and feminist
activism. Ecofeminist theorists analyze the connections between the oppression of women and
the oppression of nonhuman nature. In the same era, Peter Singer published Animal Liberation
(1975), in which Singer examines the extent of nonhuman animal suffering. The text is widely
considered the founding book of the animal liberation movement and popularized the term
“speciesism.” In essence, anti-speciesists challenge the hierarchy of animals, in which human
animals are valued over nonhuman animals; it argues that “species” is an arbitrary identity
2
characteristic like race and gender. In 1990, Carol J. Adams published The Sexual Politics of
Meat which bridged together the feminist, ecofeminist, and animal liberation movements.
Adam’s book analyzed the interconnections between feminism and vegetarianism, masculinity
and meat eating, and articulated the concept of “absent referent.” Coined “vegetarian (eco)
feminism,” this branch of (eco) feminism expanded its analysis of oppression to include
nonhuman animals into (eco) feminist theory and praxis. Although feminism is loosely defined,
the core of feminism essentially means “to not accept the ethics of exploitation” (Adams 129).
Although feminism examines different axes and interconnections of oppression, often times the
exploitation of nonhuman animals and nature is left out from feminist analysis. Mainstream
feminist academia has rejected ecofeminist and vegetarian ecofeminist as viable theoretical
lenses. Vegetarian ecofeminists argue that the analysis of nonhuman animal oppression is an
intrinsic part of feminist and ecofeminist analysis because all axes of oppression are
interconnected and mutually reinforcing.
In my thesis, I will first explore the history of vegetarian ecofeminism and its roots in the
environmental, ecofeminist, and animal liberation movements. Next, I will analyze critiques of
ecofeminism, vegetarian ecofeminism, and animal-rights activism. Additionally, I will examine
the relationship between vegetarian ecofeminism and the larger feminist movement, and argue
that an ecological, anti-speciesist perspective should be included in mainstream feminist
academia. Finally, I will attempt to suggest direction for future development and activism for
vegetarian ecofeminists. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer writes, “Animal liberation is human
liberation too” (xxv). If human liberation is intertwined with animal liberation, it is crucial that
vegetarian ecofeminism, feminist, and animal rights advocates bridge together movements to
take future steps towards liberation.
3
Definitions:
There will be several terms used throughout my thesis in which I define for clarification.
First, I use the term “nonhuman animal” as opposed to “animal” in an effort to challenge the
human/animal dichotomy. Peter Singer explains, “We commonly use the word “animal” to mean
“animals other than human beings.” This usage sets humans apart from other animals, implying
that we are not ourselves animals” (xxiv). Thus, this thesis will use the term “nonhuman
animals” as a form of resistance against oppressive and hierarchal dichotomies. Second, I use
the term “vegetarian” to describe a diet free from animal flesh, dairy, eggs, and other nonhuman
animal products. The vegetarianism I describe not only refers to dietary practices, but it is also
inherently and unapologetically political. As Carol J. Adams details, “It is thought that
[vegetarianism] is about consumption practices rather than production practices. Actually,
[vegetarianism] is a boycott” (Why feminist-vegan now? 306). Lastly, I recognize that feminism
is an umbrella term that encompasses a plethora of theoretical perspectives, as well as refers to
several historical movements. To define feminism, I will refer to bell hook’s definition. hooks
defines feminism as the movement to “eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates
Western culture on various levels – sex, race, and class to name a few” (Collins 355). Looking at
it in a similar way, “feminist means to not accept the ethics of exploitation” (Adams 129). I will
use the term “feminism” to refer to an ideology and a movement that challenges sexism,
exploitation, and the ideology of domination. Other terms, such as ecofeminism, the animal
rights movement, and feminist contextual vegetarianism, will be defined later on in my thesis.
Part I: The Century of Nonhuman Animals; The Roots of Vegetarian Ecofeminism
Prior to the emergence of ecofeminism, women had been contributing to the study of the
environment for decades. In Women and the Environment, Carol Merchant examines the historic
4
the relationship between women and the environmental activism. One of the most well-known
texts, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) gained national popularity for its analysis of the
death-producing effects of DDT and other pesticides used for agriculture. In fact, her book is
credited for inspiring the environmental movement which began in the 1960s (Merchant 139).
Women have historically constituted a large percentage of environmental activists. In the 1970s
and 1980s, Merchants notes that “a much larger percentage of women than men considered
themselves definitely or somewhat anti-nuclear (58 percent to 41 percent)” (Merchant 142).
Additionally, women participated in advocating against radioactive wastes, chemical wastes, and
pesticides and herbicides. Women of color and low-income women were a crucial component for
organizing, creating awareness, and advocating for policies that protect the environment and hold
the government accountable. For instance, Lois Gibbs, a resident in Niagara Falls, and other
women in her “blue-collar” community raised awareness about the effects of hazardous waste
disposal by Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corporation (Merchant 145). The fight against toxic
and chemical wastes has been largely a movement of mothers fighting for life and death issues
directly affecting their children and home (Merchant 145). Although the environmental and
feminist movements surfaced simultaneously in the 1960s, the intertwining of the two
movements did not occur until the 1970s.
A product of the women’s liberation movement and the environmental movement,
ecofeminism emerged as a unique feminist standpoint. Francoise d’Eaubonne coined the term
“ecofeminisme” in 1974 to inspire women to create an ecological revolution to save the planet
(Merchant 5). Simply put, ecofeminism analyzes the interconnections between the domination of
women and domination of nonhuman nature (Warren 1). It is the theory that women and
nonhuman nature have been mutually associated and devalued in Western society (Warren 1).
5
Similar to ecology, ecofeminism asserts the special strength and integrity of every living thing –
individuals and nonhuman nature alike. Ecofeminism is a unique position that is simultaneously
committed to the elimination of patriarchy and the preservation of ecosystems. Additionally,
ecofeminism goes beyond gender and ecology to include the different intersections of identities.
Ecofeminist Karen J. Warren explains, “Ecofeminist analyses of twin dominations of women and
nature include considerations of the domination of people of color, children, and the underclass”
(1). Ecofeminism is a unifying movement of individuals which addresses “all social systems of
domination, for instance racism, classism, ageism, ethnocentrism, imperialism, colonialism, as
well as sexism” says Warren (2). A unique movement, ecofeminism intertwines ecological,
feminist, and multicultural concerns, and advocates for a complete liberation from all institutions
of domination.
Ecofeminism is an umbrella term for multi-layered theoretical lens that examines the
relationship between women and men, humans and nonhuman nature, and the similar domination
of women and nonhuman nature. Through a variety of theoretical lenses, ecofeminism explores
how the oppression of white women, people of color, and queer and trans* identified individuals
are connected to the oppression of nonhuman nature. Ecofeminist subgroups include: cultural
ecofeminism, social and socialist ecofeminism, liberal ecofeminism, veganarchist feminism,
ecowomanism, vegetarian ecofeminism, and queer ecofeminism. Although ecofeminism is a
plurality of positions, there are general overarching principles of ecofeminism. Author of
Ecological Feminism, Karen Warren outlines the four minimal claims of ecofeminism:
i.
there are important connections between the oppression of women and the oppression
of nature;
6
ii.
understanding the nature of these connections is necessary to any adequate
understanding of the oppression of women and the oppression of nature;
iii.
feminist theory and practice must include an ecological perspective; and
iv.
solutions to ecological problems must include a feminist perspective (Gaard 129).
Ecofeminism is a unique feminist position because it includes the oppression of nonhuman
nature to its analysis of oppression. By comparing the oppression of nonhuman nature with that
of other axes of oppression, racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism and speciesism, ecofeminism
attempts to be an all-inclusive analysis of oppression.
During the same era of environmental and feminist activism, the animal liberation
movement surfaced in the late 1970s as a crusade to challenge individuals and society as a whole
to extend moral and ethical considerations to animals (Singer 6). In 1975, Peter Singer published
Animal Liberation which examines the extent of nonhuman animal suffering. The text is widely
considered the founding book of the animal liberation movement and popularized the term
“speciesism.” Singer defines speciesism as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the
interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”
(Singer 9). Similar to racism and sexism, as Singer points out, speciesism takes an arbitrary
identity and places hierarchal-value on it. Singer’s argument against speciesism rests on the
notion that animals, like humans, are sentient beings. He writes, “If a being suffers there can be
no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the
nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with
the like suffering…of any other being” (Singer 8). In essence, equality requires the minimization
of suffering by challenging institutions of oppression that cause violence and pain, such as
7
racism, sexism, and speciesism. Thus, Singer advocates changing practices that condone animal
exploitation, such as animal experimentation and rearing animals for food (Singer 23).
Despite the importance of Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, his analysis of speciesism
has been critiqued by vegetarian-ecofeminist Greta Gaard in “Vegetarian Ecofeminism.” Gaard
states that many vegetarians become vegetarian by choice because of sympathy developed for
nonhuman animals (118). After witnessing the conditions of factory farms, individuals convert
their compassion for nonhuman animals into dietary choices that are free of animal products.
Gaard critiques Singer’s Animal Liberation because Singer’s argument for the defense of animals
is argued from a perspective of reason, and rejects emotion (Gaard 121). Gaard argues that
Singer’s approach creates a dichotomy between reason and emotion, which is counterproductive
because he is essentially rejecting the human/animal dichotomy and simultaneously upholding
another dichotomy. In Animal Liberation, Singer uses moral and ethical arguments based on
utilitarian principles and disregards emotional responses to human-animal relationships. He
matter-of-factly writes, “We [Mr. Singer and his wife] didn’t “love” animals. We simply wanted
them treated as independent sentient being that they are, and not as a means to human ends”
(Singer xxi). Singer comes to his anti-speciesist arguments not because of his relationship with
animals, but rather through moral and ethical conclusion. However, Gaard posits that both reason
and emotion are necessary to provide a reasonable guide to ethics and action (Gaard 123).
In contrast to Singer’s rejection of emotion, many feminists have documented personal
and emotional encounters with animals that have changed their diets. In “Am I Blue?” author
Alice Walker describes her emotional connection to her neighbor’s horse, Blue, which eventually
transforms her diet. When the horse’s partner is sold, she details the horses change in character;
its sadness, anger, and hatred for humans. She compares this incident to the forced separation of
8
family during the era of slavery. Walker writes, “I dreaded looking into his eyes – because I had
of course noticed that Brown, his partner, had gone – but I did look. If I had been born into
slavery, and my partner had been sold or killed, my eyes would have looked like that” (Walker
140). The horse exhibits a human-like response, his eyes filled with pain and suffering, which
shocks and saddens Walker. She briefly describes the dissonance between the food we consume
– milk, eggs, and meat – and the nonhuman animals who produce it. Rather than understand
where our food comes from, Walker argues that we choose to be disillusioned. Due to her
emotional response to Blue, she changes her diet. Walker details, “As we talked of freedom and
justice one day for all, we sat down to steaks. I am eating misery, I thought, as I took the first
bite. And spit it out” (Walker 141) Although Singer’s Animal Liberation provided the
foundation for animal rights action, Gaard’s and Walker’s experience posits that animal rights
advocacy needs to move beyond an argument based on reason to a more holistic approach that
combines reason and emotion.
Vegetarian ecofeminism threads together feminist, ecofeminist, and animal rights theory
and praxis. Due to the inadequacies of the separate feminist, ecofeminist, and animal rights
movements, vegetarian ecofeminism surfaced as a collective, radical perspective that challenges
patriarchy, meat culture, and the objectification and consumption of women and nonhuman
animals. Vegetarian ecofeminism argues that the omission of nonhuman animal oppression and
exploitation from feminist and ecofeminist analysis is “inconsistent with the activist and
philosophical foundations of both feminism (as a “movement to end all forms of oppression”)
and ecofeminism (as an analysis that critiques value-hierarchal thought, the logic of domination,
and normative dualism)” (Gaard 130). Some vegetarian ecofeminists assert that without an
understanding of speciesism, feminist and ecofeminist analysis is incomplete. Because
9
vegetarian ecofeminism includes a plurality of positions, it is thus a term with many layers. Greta
Gaard defines the principles of vegetarian ecofeminism arguing for the:
“moral treatment of nonhuman animals on the basis of sympathy; on the conceptual
linkages among sexism, racism, and speciesism; on the recognition on flesh-eating as a
form of patriarchal domination; and on the basis of the cultural constructed association
among women, animals, people of color, and nature that are used to subordinate these
groups in Western patriarchal thought” (127).
Vegetarian ecofeminism is dissimilar to ecofeminism feminism, and animal rights advocacy in
several aspects – vegetarian feminism stresses the importance of analyzing the oppression of
nonhuman animals within ecofeminist and feminist movements; it challenges the feminist
movement to extend its analysis of oppression to nonhuman nature; and it encourages the animal
rights movement to adopt a feminist viewpoint.
The term “vegetarian feminism” was popularized by the publication of Carol. J. Adams
book The Sexual Politics of Meat (1990). Although the links between feminism and
vegetarianism had been explored previously, Adams’s book was particularly important for
articulating the concept of the “absent referent,” analyzing the consumption of animals and
women, and examining how patriarchal culture determines what, or rather who, we eat. In
understanding the links between the oppression of women and the oppression of nonhuman
animals, Adams’s “absent referent” is especially crucial in linking the two. Adams explains
absent referent as “that which separates the meat eater from and the animal from the end
product” (14). In essence, the animal that once was a living, breathing being is made invisible
through the disguise of language. Animals are made absent through language that renames dead
bodies before consumers participate in eating them – beef, pork, sausage, etc. (Adams 40).
10
Adams explains, “We rarely talk about eating (dead) animals at all. We talk about eating “meat”’
(24). Meat hides the fact that what is being served on the dinner table was once a live animal;
the living being is absent in the concept of meat. “The absent referent functions to cloak the
violence inherent to meat eating, to protect the conscience of the meat eater and render the idea
of individual animals as immaterial to anyone’s selfish desires,” Adams details (Why feministvegan now? 304). The absent referent functions to mask the reality of actions, and allows
individuals to blindly perpetuate systems of oppression.
To understand how the oppression of nonhuman animals is connected to the oppression
of women, we must first understand the threefold process of the absent referent. Adams argues
“that a process of objectification, fragmentation, and consumption enables the oppression of
animals so that animals are rendered being-less through technology, language, and cultural
representation” (Why feminist-vegan now? 304). First, objectification turns a someone into a
something. Succeeding objectification, the object is then fragmented. In the case of nonhuman
animals, they are both literally and ontologically fragmented. The fragmented is then consumed.
Each process – objectification, fragmentation, and consumption – contributes to the absence of
the living being that once was. Adams finds similarities between the threefold process of the
absent referent of nonhuman animals and women. She details, “I propose that this cycle of
objectification, fragmentation, and consumption linked butchering with both the representation
and reality of sexual violence in Western cultures that normalizes sexual consumption” (Why
feminist-vegan now? 204). The similar process that turns nonhuman animals into meat is used
with a patriarchal society to objectify, fragment, and consume women for sexual gratification.
Women become sexualized objects; women, someone, are transformed into something. Through
an analysis of heterosexual pornography, Adams concludes that women are reduced in a
11
patriarchal society to their sexuality, not for their own pleasure but for the male sexual
gratification. And yet, the sexualization of women goes far beyond pornography. Through
technology, language, and cultural representation, women are defined by their bodies and
sexuality; women’s autonomy and agency are taken from them. Thus, Adams concludes that the
oppression of women and the oppression of nonhuman animals are inherently bound together. As
a form of resistance against patriarchy, vegetarian ecofeminists boycott the production and
consumption of animal products.
Part II: Exploring Critiques of Ecofeminism, Vegetarian Ecofeminism, and Animal Right
Advocacy
As detailed in Part I, ecofeminism has a rich history of theory and activism critiquing
militarism, nuclear power and weapons, environmental racism, and hazardous toxic waste sites,
and challenging the oppression of feminized groups – white women, queers, people of color, and
nonhuman woman. Many thought that ecofeminism would be feminism’s “third wave,”
challenging the myriad of oppressions with an ecological perspective (Gaard 31). However,
despite its interdisciplinary foundation, ecofeminism, and its subsequent branch vegetarian
ecofeminism have received much criticism from mainstream feminist academia.
Ecofeminism has been unfairly labeled as essentialist and discredited by mainstream
feminist academia. Although ecofeminism encompasses a plurality of positions, cultural
ecofeminism was portrayed as the dominant ideology of ecofeminism; cultural ecofeminism has
been identified as problematic by feminist scholars for its primary focus on celebrating goddess
spiritualty and essentializing gender (Gaard 31). In “Ecofeminism Revisited” Greta Gaard
details, “Poststructuralists and other third-wave feminisms portrayed all ecofeminism as an
exclusively essentialist equation of women and nature, discrediting ecofeminism’s diversity of
12
arguments and standpoints” (31). By arguing that the oppression of women and nature are
interconnected, ecofeminist analysis has been critiqued by mainstream feminist academia for
perpetuating the association of women with nature, and further entrenching the gender binary.
The essentialist critique of ecofeminism garnered so much support by the mainstream feminist
academia that, “by 2010, it is nearly impossible to find a single essay, much less a section,
devoted to issues of feminism and ecology (and certainly not ecofeminism), species, or nature in
most introductory anthologies used in women’s studies, gender studies, or queer studies” (Gaard
31). The exclusion of an ecological-feminist analysis demonstrates how mainstream feminist
academia has discredited and disregarded ecofeminism as a viable feminist theoretical lens.
Thus, the rich history of ecofeminism challenging the socially constructed association of women,
femininity, and nature has been silenced.
During the 1990s, mainstream feminist academia developed a strong resistance towards
ecofeminism and vegetarian ecofeminist literature. While feminists began to explore the
intersections of social identities, the “premise that species [was] a social construction in exactly
the same way that race and gender was depicted as highly debatable” (Gaard 34). Other articles
such as Kathryn George’s “Should Feminists Be Vegetarians? (1994), Beth Dixon’s “The
Feminist Connection between Women and Animals” (1996), and Mary Stange’s Women and the
Hunter (1997) advanced the idea that vegetarian ecofeminism is ethnocentric and essentialist.
Critiques of ethnocentrism and essentialism stemmed from the fact that much of the published
and popular writings in this area came from the dominant social identity of white, Western,
middle-class women (Deckha 533). Vegan ecowomanist A. Breeze Harper echoes this critique;
prior to adopting a vegan ecowomanist perspective, she thought that vegetarianism was the
domain of “privileged, white, middle and upper-class people of America” (Harper 20). In light of
13
the critiques of vegetarian ecofeminism, vegetarian ecofeminists have responded with proposed
solutions.
To combat racism and classism within the movement, vegetarian ecofeminists have
reflected on external critiques of the theory and proposed solutions. In “We Are What We Eat:
Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity,” author Cathryn Bailey
proposes “feminist contextual vegetarianism.” She describes the position as follows:
“Eating animals may not have the same meaning in all circumstances. Notably,
“circumstances” is meant to highlight that eating animals can have a different meaning
for individuals ad cultures; the hunting, killing, and eating of a wild boar need not be
thought of as morally equivalent to selecting and eating a segment of a hog’s leg from the
supermarket by a privileged Westerner” (50).
Feminist contextual vegetarianism takes into consideration cultural identity and the importance
of cultural rituals, traditions, and ceremonies that value animal sacrifices and animals as food.
Instead of a philosophy of absolutes, feminist contextual vegetarianism acknowledges lived
realities and experiences that may permit nonhuman animal consumption. As author Layli
Phillips puts it, “Veganism is a principle, not a law” (11). Rather than a list of “do’s” and
“don’ts,” veganism encourages individuals to analyze what we eat and where our food comes
from. Bailey writes, “Most Westerners who eat animals do not do so as a thoughtful expression
of some deeply held aspect of our identity, but out of habit, convenience, or apathy” (56).
Vegetarian ecofeminism challenges our socially conditioned apathy and dissonance from food
production. It encourages people to ask, how was this made? Who made this? Do my food
choices contribute to an ethics of exploitation or liberation? While answering these questions,
feminist contextual vegetarianism leaves room for cultural considerations. Additionally, in
14
rejecting an absolutist and totalizing vegetarian perspective, vegetarian ecofeminism challenges
claims of ethnocentrism and elitism, and makes room to build alliances with other social justice
movements.
Another solution proposes that vegetarian ecofeminism should extend beyond a genderconcentrated approach. In “Toward a Postcolonial, Posthumanist Feminist Theory: Centralizing
Race and Culture in Feminist Work on Nonhuman Animals” author Maneesha Deckha argues
that feminist work on nonhuman animals must become more intersectional, and centralize the
dynamics of race and culture into their gender work on animals (530). She critiques previous
vegetarian ecofeminist literature for its analysis of nonhuman animal oppression through
primarily the lens of gender and sexist discourses. In prioritizing the gender-species dyad,
vegetarian ecofeminism has ignored other differences and marginalized social identities. Deckha
warns that vegetarian ecofeminism runs the risk of being essentialist; she details, “The analysis is
essentialist at the essence of a woman is seen to be her gender identity largely unmediated by any
other aspect of her social location” (531). In essence, Deckha critiques vegetarian ecofeminism
because it prioritizes a woman’s gender over other aspects of their identity such as race, class,
nationality, sexual orientation, and religion. By focusing on race and culture, rather than simply
gender, vegetarian ecofeminism can therefore challenge both essentialist and ethnocentric
feminist theorization which asserts that sexism and gender sufficiently explain the problems of
women’s lives (Deckha 531). Deckha recognizes that gender is a salient part of vegetarian
ecofeminist analysis; she instead challenges vegetarian ecofeminism to centralize its analysis of
oppression beyond sex and gender (533).
Throughout the past decade, vegetarian ecofeminists have reflected and modified theories
and analysis of oppression. While vegetarian ecofeminist theories expanded and continue to
15
explore economic, material, international, and intersectional perspectives, “feminist scholars still
conceive of social justice, interspecies ethics, and environmental concerns as separate,” Gaard
argues (33). Women’s issue and environmental concerns are thought of as separate and
incompatible. Although vegetarian ecofeminist have listened to the critics and refined their
works, feminism has still made no effort to include ecofeminist and vegetarian ecofeminist
analysis. Gaard describes, “The charges against ecofeminist as essentialists, ethnocentric, antiintellectual goddess-worshippers who…issue totalizing and ahistorical mandates for worldwide
veganism have been disproven again and again in these pages of academic and popular journals,
at conference and in conversation, yet the contamination still linger” (32). As the term “feminist”
is loaded and negatively connoted in broader society, the terms “ecofeminist” and “vegetarian
ecofeminist” are similarly negatively connoted within mainstream feminist academia. Despite
valid critiques of ecofeminism and vegetarian ecofeminism, mainstream feminist academia failed
to consider the fundamental insight of vegetarian ecofeminism: “the importance of speciesism as
a form of oppression that is interconnected with and reinforce[s] other oppressive structures”
(Gaard 38). Since the 1990s, feminism has sought to explore the intersectionality of identities
and social categories of power. Yet, “much recent feminist work specifically on the concept of a
intersectionality makes no references to ecofeminist theory, or ‘nature,’ or the question of the
animal” (Twine 402). Without the analysis of nonhuman nature oppression, vegetarian
ecofeminists argue that feminist analysis will be incomplete.
By ignoring ecofeminist analysis and its rich history of activism, mainstream feminist
academia will inadequately address the totality of oppressions. With ecofeminist theories largely
ignored by mainstream feminist academia, “human-centered (anthropocentric) feminism has
come to dominate feminist thinking in the new millennium” Gaard writes (32). By disregarding
16
an ecological perspective, feminism ignores global climate change, food security, nonhuman
animal and plant extinction, habitat loss, industrial animal food production, and other
environmental problems of the twenty-first century. In a discipline dedicated to social justice,
feminism without an ecological perspective is severely limited in both theory and praxis.
Scholars who identify as both a feminist and an environmentalist distance themselves from the
label “ecofeminist.” Terms such as “ecological feminism,” “feminist environmentalism,”
“critical feminist eco-socialism,” and “gender and the environment” have been popularized
(Gaard 27). This is ultimately damaging for scholars who wish to analyze gender and the
environment. It perpetuates the notion that ecofeminism is ethnocentric, elitist, and essentialist.
Rather than reject the label “ecofeminist” it is ultimately important for twenty-first century
ecofeminists to be cognizant of its rich and prescient history. Additionally, it is important for
mainstream feminist academia to adopt an ecological perspective.
Vegetarian and animal right awareness organizations have been critiqued for perpetuating
racist and sexist ideologies through their consciousness-raising tactics. For instance, “People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] toured an exhibit that juxtaposed images of brutal
exploitation of blacks with those of animals. Humans being sold, tortured, and killed were
presented alongside images of animals being sold, tortured, and killed” (Bailey 41). PETA’s
comparison of human and nonhuman animal exploitation has been criticized for appropriating
the history of African Americans, as well as other historically oppressed groups of individuals.
Past PETA campaigns include “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur,” “Holocaust on Your
Plate,” and “End Slavery” (Deckha 37). At the expense of raising awareness about the ongoing
exploitation of nonhuman animals, PETA has sexualized women’s bodies and offensively
misused histories of genocide and enslavement (Deckha 37). In a majority of PETA’s advertising
17
campaigns, sexualized white women are featured advocating for a vegan lifestyle; in an attempt
to generate compassion of animal suffering, PETA has used the nude, largely white, female form
to gain attraction and popularization (Deckha 66). This is problematic because, while advocating
for the rights of nonhuman animals, PETA sexualizes, objectifies, and exploits women. The
campaigns largely publicized by PETA have connoted vegetarianism with being elitist,
insensitive, and solely animal focused, tainting the label of “vegetarian/vegan.” Without a
feminist viewpoint, animal rights movements and vegetarians would fail to create change for
animals.
Part III: Towards a new reality, new possibilities, and new ways of living
This section will envision a future for vegetarian ecofeminist activism and suggest ways
to build alliances between the feminist and vegetarian ecofeminist movements. It will analyze
intersectional feminist theory and liberation theory – “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women
Redefining Difference” by Audre Lorde, “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as
Categories of Analysis of Connection” by Patricia Hill Collins, and Pedagogy of the Oppressed
by Paulo Freire – to better understand the problems faced by the movements and attempt to
reconcile obstacles. Intertwining feminist theory, liberation theory, and vegetarian ecofeminism
will highlight prevalent themes and suggestions for the future of vegetarian ecofeminist theory
and praxis. Intersectional feminist theory and liberation pedagogy can potentially encompass the
oppression of nonhuman animals, and additionally envision future alliances and activism for
vegetarian ecofeminism.
To move forward in the movement for liberation, feminists, vegetarian ecofeminists, and
animal rights advocates must recognize the roles of the oppressed and the oppressor. In
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, author Paulo Freire develops a pedagogy for liberation. His work is
18
particularly important in understanding the relationship between the oppressed and oppressor,
and working towards ending systems of oppression. The importance of liberation is to obtain full
humanity. Not only are the oppressed dehumanized, but, in the process of dominating the
oppressed, the oppressors inherently dehumanize themselves. Freire details, “The oppressor is
himself dehumanized because he dehumanizes others” (8). Through the arguments made by
Freire, it is recognizable that our own liberation is bound to the liberation of nonhuman animals.
Feminists and vegetarian ecofeminists argue that the world is structured by a myriad of
oppressions. Through our multiple social identities, individuals are not solely oppressed or
oppressor; rather, individuals are both the oppressor and the oppressed (Collins 530). Vegetarian
ecofeminists assert that as humans living in an anthropocentric, speciesist world we are
privileged because we are human animals, despite our racial, gender, sexual orientation, and
class identities. Often times, our privilege blinds up from the systems of oppression we
contribute to. In “White Privilege and Male Privilege,” author Peggy McIntosh writes, “I think
whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize
male privilege” (317). In relation to speciesism, human animals consciously or unconsciously
contribute to the oppression of nonhuman animals through the consumption of food and purchase
of products made from or tested on nonhuman animals. To access our full humanization, it is
imperative that feminists, vegetarian ecofeminists, and animal rights advocates challenge all the
oppressive structures in our world.
By examining the roles as both oppressor and oppressed, we are challenged to confront
personal privilege and work towards reconciling unjust systems we unconsciously contribute to.
This is crucial for the progress of all movements: to recognize that the pieces of both the
oppressor and the oppressed are embedded into our individual identity. Collins details, “Once we
19
realize that there are few pure victims or oppressors, and that each one derives varying amounts
of penalty and privilege form the multitude of systems of oppression that frame our lives, then
we will be in a position to see the need for new ways of thought and action” (530).Vegetarian
ecofeminism challenges individuals to recognize our human privilege, an identity that is often
left out in the analysis of power and privilege. As human beings living in a speciesist society, we
are privileged in a similar sense as men are privileged in patriarchal society and white
individuals are privileged in white supremacist society. However, living in a speciesist society
we often do not recognize our privilege, or perhaps we label it as unimportant. Collins argues,
“Each group identifies a type of oppression with which it feels most comfortable as being
fundamental and classifies all other types as being lesser importance” (529). Feminists,
vegetarian ecofeminists, and animal rights advocates have historically, and arguably presently,
elevated one oppression over another. In elevating one oppression over another, movements have
become factionalized, and are viewed as opposing rather than potential alliances.
Additionally, it is important for individuals to recognize not only how movements
perpetuate systems of oppression, but how individuals themselves have internalized the
oppressor. To “move beyond the most superficial aspects of social change,” it is required that we
acknowledge internalized oppression (Lorde 556). Feminism challenges us to recognize and root
out the aspects of the oppressor that are deeply embedded into our personhood. Lorde describes,
“For we have, built into all of us, old blueprints of expectation and response, old structures of
oppression, and these must be altered at the same time as we alter the living conditions which are
a result of those structures” (559). In essence, feminists and vegetarian ecofeminists cannot only
look at the external structures that perpetuate systems of oppression; rather, the challenge is to
ask how individuals contribute to these systems on a personal level. When individuals live in an
20
oppressive society, each person internalizes some aspect of the oppressor, and unconsciously
contributes to systems of domination and exploitation. To combat systems of oppression and
work towards liberation, individuals must reject the ethics of exploitation. Lorde provocatively
writes, “For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (559). If feminists
and/or vegetarians contribute to the ethics of exploitation and oppression, the ability to reach our
goals will be severely limited. The present obstacles of feminist, vegetarian ecofeminist, and
animal rights movements are often that the movements are clouded with historical amnesia and
their unwillingness to recognize their internalized oppression.
In an effort to create a future free of exploitation, feminists, vegetarian ecofeminist, and
animal rights advocates are called to recognize historical and present systems of oppression. By
examining instances of historical amnesia, feminist and vegetarian ecofeminists can envision a
feminist future that integrates an ecological perspective and nonhuman animals. Historical
amnesia is the process in which societies forget about past injustices, thus systems of oppression
are continually perpetuated. Lorde describes, “We find ourselves having to repeat and relearn
the same old lessons over and over that our mothers did because we do not pass on what we have
learned, or because we are unable to listen” (553). In essence, if the voices of the oppressed are
not heard and past injustices are not taught, societies are doomed to perpetuate systems of
oppression. Although feminists recognize systems of racism, classism, heterosexism,
transphobia, and sexism, mainstream feminist academia omits issues of feminism and ecology,
species, and nature. It is important for feminists, vegetarian ecofeminists, and other social
justices that the histories of the “-isms” are intertwined and overlapping. If injustices are
historically intertwined, the root of oppression is not a single dimension, but rather it is multifaceted. If feminists do not include an ecological perspective or recognize speciesism, feminist
21
analysis of oppression will be incomplete and will fail in its efforts for change; it will be unable
to transform the roots of oppression. In a similar fashion, if animal rights advocates and
vegetarians fail to consider a feminist viewpoint, efforts towards the liberation of nonhuman
animals will fail. Historical amnesia can be severely limiting to all movements; each is called to
remember and recognize overlapping histories of oppression.
To obtain liberation, Freire outlines two distinct stages for the pedagogy of the oppressed.
He details, “In the first, the oppressed unveil the world of oppression and through the praxis
commit themselves to its transformation” (13). In a speciesist society, oppressed species cannot
necessarily communicate their oppression, or their desire for liberation. Instead, it has been
vegetarians, animal rights advocates, and vegetarian ecofeminists advocating on the behalf of the
oppressed. Through consciousness-raising groups, emerging theories, blogs, books, and
slideshow presentations, individuals who advocate on the behalf of nonhuman animals unveil the
world of oppression that nonhuman animals are situated in. The world in unveiled in the process
Freire calls “conscientizacao,” translated to critical consciousness, which is the process in which
the oppressive structures of our lives, communities, and world are revealed. Next, Freire
describes, “In the second stage, in which the reality of oppression has already been transformed,
this pedagogy ceases to belong to the oppressed and becomes a pedagogy of all men in the
process of permanent liberation” (13). Vegetarian ecofeminism is arguably struggling through
the first stage; vegetarian ecofeminists and animal rights advocates are still in the process of
unveiling the world of oppression. Speciesism is perpetually discredited as a legitimate form of
oppression, as is vegetarian ecofeminism is largely disregarded by mainstream feminist
academia. The resistance between movements and theoretical branches limits the potential for
22
liberation. By viewing all systems of oppression as intertwined, intersectional feminist theory
allows movements to reconcile the tensions and envision possibilities for alliances.
It is imperative for the future of feminist, vegetarian ecofeminist, and animal rights
movements to build effective coalitions amongst one another. As argued previously, feminism
will be incomplete without an ecological perspective, and vegetarian and animal rights advocacy
will be incomplete without a feminist viewpoint. Thus, effective coalitions between the
movements will help achieve goals of challenging systems of oppression. Despite the differences
between the movements, feminists, vegetarian ecofeminists, and animal rights advocates all
strive towards a new reality free from exploitation. As Collins describes “Building effective
coalitions involves struggling to hear one another and developing empathy for each other’s point
of view” (539). Rather than viewing the movement as oppositional, it is imperative to grasp the
similarities between the movements. Feminist, vegetarian ecofeminist, and animal rights
movements must recognize that at the core of the movements is the same objective – to create a
world free from exploitation and domination. Recognizing our similarities as well as our
differences is important to the success of the movements; however, recognizing the differences
should not ultimately divide the movements. Collins argues, “We do not all have to do the same
thing in the same way. Instead, we must support each other’s efforts, realizing that they are all
part of the larger enterprise of bringing about social change” (540). Each of the movements
recognizes the larger structures of oppression. Although different theoretical approaches are used
to understand systems of oppression, each movement works towards a reality free from the
oppressive bonds of the world. Divided, the feminist, vegetarian ecofeminists, and animal rights
movements will not succeed, but together the movements can make effective strides towards
liberation.
23
Conclusion:
The solutions proposed in Part III and recognizing the compatibility of the movements is
a fairly simple idea. As feminists and vegetarian ecofeminists postulate, all systems of
oppression are intertwined and mutually reinforcing. Thus, building alliances between
movements is a plausible solution in resisting and challenging all systems of exploitation and
domination. Yet, building effective coalitions is hardly a simple task. Feminism and ecology,
nonhuman animals and feminism are viewed as separate issues by mainstream feminist
academia. By not integrating the analysis of nature and nonhuman animals into feminist theory
and praxis, the future of the feminist movement is seriously limited; as is the future of the animal
rights movement if they fail to integrate a feminist viewpoint. In an effort to create a just and
oppressive free-world, vegetarian ecofeminism, mainstream feminist academia, and the animal
rights movement must acknowledge and reconcile their differences.
In the past decade, several promising vegetarian ecofeminist texts have emerged that
unveil the intersections between racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, and speciesism. The
anthologies Sister Species: Women, Animals, and Social Justice and Sistah Vegan: Black Female
Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society are such examples that integrate multidisciplinary perspectives on the interconnections of race, gender, sexual orientation, class,
spirituality, and species. These two anthologies especially examine the relationship amongst
race, culture, and species, a promising aspect of the new era of vegetarian ecofeminism.
Published recently, Defiant Daughters is an anthology of women’s diverse experiences as
feminists and activists inspired by Adam’s The Sexual Politics of Meat. In an era in which the
oppression of nonhuman animals is silenced by mainstream feminist academia, these texts and
24
others produced by vegetarian ecofeminists are radical ideologies that illuminate species identify
within axes of oppression.
As a student studying women’s and gender studies, ecological issues were not talked
about in classes. Instead, I sought courses outside the Women’s and Gender Studies department
to fill my environmental curiosity. I was not introduced to the concept of ecofeminism until
Feminist and Gender Theories, and the oppression of nonhuman animals has never been talked
about in feminist classrooms. If my experience informs what mainstream feminist academia
thinks about feminism and ecology, species and nature it is that they are not compatible and
entirely separate issues. It is time that as feminists we reconsider the axes of oppression to
include nature and nonhuman animals. Within mainstream feminist academia, we are missing a
central aspect of feminist theory and praxis. Without recognizing all systems of oppression, our
theory and praxis will never be complete. This thesis hopes to inform and challenge the silence
around nature and species within mainstream feminist academia; it is a call for more feminist
literature and research on the topic on the oppression of nonhuman animals and the environment.