THE POLITICS OF WOMEN AND
NATURE: AFFINITY, CONTINGENCY
OR MATERIAL RELATION?
Marry Mellor
ABSTRACT Ecofeminism asserts that there is a relationship between the subordination and
oppression of women and the exploitation and degradation of the natural world. Ecofeminists
who draw on radical/cultural feminism tend to see this relationship as a near essentialist
affinity between women and nature. Those who draw on social constructivist models of
feminism see it as a historical and socially contingent relationship. This paper argues that the
division between these two views can be overcome by seeing the relationship between women
and the natural world as a material one and that ecofeminism provides the basis of a new
radical social theory as well as a political movement.
Women must see that there can be no liberation for them and no solution to the ecological
crisis within a society whose fundamental model of relationships continues to be one of
domination. They must unite the demands of the women's movement with those of the
ecological movement to envision a radical reshaping of the basic socioeconomic relations and
the underlying values of this society.[ 1] Ecofeminism makes such big promises! The
convergence of ecology and feminism into a new social theory and political movement
challenges gender relations, social institutions, economic systems, sciences, and views of our
place as humans in the biosphere.[ 2]
Introduction
The emergence of ecofeminism as a movement more than 20 years ago was based on the
claim that there is a connection between the exploitation and degradation of the natural world
and the subordination and oppression of women. Ecofeminism emerged alongside the
radicalization of second wave feminism and the deepening of the green movement. Like the
deep(er) green movement it takes a view of the natural world (including humanity) as
interconnected and interdependent and shares with radical feminism a view of humanity as
systematically gendered in ways that subordinate, exploit and oppress women. Ecofeminists
see gender inequality as resulting in a relationship between humanity and the natural world in
which women and men are differently located. The definition of ecofeminism as an ideology
depends upon how the connection between women and nature is identified and explained and
the political conclusions that are drawn.
Within ecofeminism two approaches to the connection between women and nature can be
identified.[ 3] The first is a direct affinity, a physiological or psychic connection. Women
`understand' nature through their physiological functions (birthing, menstrual cycles) or some
deep element of their personalities (lifeoriented, nourishing/caring values). This version of
ecofeminism draws heavily on radical/cultural feminism and can be seen as ideological in the
sense of promoting the particular and exclusive interests/values of women. Men by definition
are not only excluded, they are the enemy. The second approach sees the connection between
the oppression of women and the exploitation of the natural world as contingent. The
juxtaposition of the subordination of women and nature has occurred at a particular historical
juncture, western patriarchal capitalism/industrialism. If women understand `nature' it is
because of their common experience of exploitation. Ecofeminists who take this perspective
often draw on social (i.e. anarchist) or socialist feminism.[ 4]
The main difference between these two groups lies in their discussion of the causes and/or
origins of women's subordination and the nature of women's connection to the natural world.
Affinity ecofeminists tend to stress the differences between men and women and focus on the
relationship between women and nature, often based on women's bodies, culture or `nature'.
Social/ist ecofeminists tend to stress inequalities in society that affect both women and the
natural world. The relationship between women and nature is an indirect one, and maledomination, although central to their analysis, is seen as a social rather than a natural
phenomenon. Contingency ecofeminists tend to stress a moral/ ethical approach to politics,
the use of women's perspectives to expound an alternative world view that others can
embrace.[ 5] In this sense contingency ecofeminism is ideological in the sense used by
Andrew Dobson to describe `ecologism', as an alternative framework for understanding the
world and developing political action with it.[ 6] However, the idea of contingency within
ecofeminism is a strong, rather than a weak one as Plumwood argues, it points to `structure
not coincidence'.[ 7] Moving towards a structural analysis leads us away from the conception
of ecofeminism as purely ideological in either of the first two senses and towards its potential
as an explanatory account of the relations between humanity and non-human nature as
reflected in the material relations between men and women[ 8] This approach to ecofeminism
grows out of the first two rather than being of a different order. Often within a single author
elements of an ideological approach (in both senses) lie alongside an analysis of the socioeconomic position of women:
Women's values, centred around life-giving, must be revalued, elevated from their oncesubordinate role. What women know from experience needs recognition and respect. We have
generations of experience in conciliation, dealing with interpersonal conflicts daily in
domestic life. We know how to feel for others because we have been socialised that way.[ 9]
Judith Plant starts from an assertion of women's affinity, their values centred around lifegiving. She then turns to their experience and argues for others to recognize and respect
women's values (and presumably share them). Finally she points to a social explanation for
women's values and experience, socialization.
Ecofeminism therefore offers us a far from clear-cut political position. As Stephanie Lahar
points out it is both a social theory and a political movement. I would want to argue that
ecofeminism has considerable potential for both, as it matures as a movement and as an
analysis.
The origins of ecofeminism
Ecofeminism emerged in the early 1970s alongside the radicalization of feminism and the
launch of the ecology movement. In this sense it was not a child of the feminism and ecology
movements, rather a first cousin to both. The emergence of radical feminism was signalled by
the publication of texts such as Shulamith Firestone's Dialectic' of Sex and Kate Miller's
Sexual Politics in 1970. The emergence of the green movement was heralded by the formation
of the world's first green party in Tasmania (the United Tasmania Group) in March 1972
followed closely by the Values Party in New Zealand in May 1972. The Ecology Party (now
the Green Party but originally named the People party) was formed in Britain in early 1973.
The MIT Limits to Growth study was published in 1972.[ 10] in the same year as Arne Naess
launched the deep ecology movement when he made his distinction between deep and shallow
ecology. Naess called for an ecosophy, an Earth-based wisdom that recognized the
complexity, diversity and symbiosis inherent in the natural world.[ 11] Ecofeminism did not
draw directly on Naess's ideas but it tended towards a `deep' approach to the natural world
either in terms of a radical cosmology of human-nature relations or in terms of a socialist
critique of the impossibility of `greening' a global capitalist economy.
Ecofeminism is generally claimed to have been `named' by a French feminist, Francoise
d'Eaubonne in 1974.[ 12] This is disputed by Janet Biehl, of the Institute for Social Ecology in
Vermont, in the US. She claims that ecofeminism was first developed in the context of the
eco-anarchist Murray Bookchin's social ecology as `social ecofeminism' by Chiah Heller also
in 1974.[ 13] However Barbara Holland-Cunz and Ariel Salleh see the movement as emerging
spontaneously in several parts of the world in the mid-1970s.[ 14]
D'Eaubonne argued in her book Le Feminisme ou la Mort that male control of production and
of women's sexuality brings the twin crises of environmental destruction through surplus
production, and overpopulation through surplus births (her particular target was Catholicism).
D'Eaubonne called upon women to wrest power from `patriarchal man' not to replace it with
'power-to-the women' but `egalitarian management of a world to be reborn'. Against the
`timid ecologists' who only looked for environmental protection, she argued that what was
needed is a 'planet in the female gender'.[ 15]
D'Eaubonne here touches upon a number of issues that would become central to the
ecofeminist movement: the crisis of modernity as the ecological cost of `progress' became
apparent, a critique of (western) `patriarchal man' as the cause of that crisis, a call to
women/female/feminism to be the agent(s) of change, a seeming prioritization of the `female
gender', but a commitment to a non-gendered egalitarianism rather than `power-to-women'. It
is patriarchy rather than men per se that is seen to be the problem. Women are to be the bridge
to a reformed and reformulated social order. D'Eaubonne asserted an affinity between
woman/femaleness and a benign attitude to the natural world that patriarchal man appeared to
lack, while looking to social changes to resolve the problem. This mixture of a nearessentialist conception of woman/nature affinity and a non-gendered outcome is not
uncommon in ecofeminist thought.
Despite d'Eaubonne's contribution, ecofeminism developed mainly in the United States and
drew on two streams in feminist thought. The first `wave' of ecofeminism was largely, though
not exclusively, dominated by radical/cultural/ spiritual feminists who stressed the affinity of
women to the natural world. The second drew more on anarchist and socialist frameworks that
saw women's oppression and subordination as socially constructed. The two perspectives in
ecofeminism reflected the divisions in the radicalization of feminism in the early 1970s.
Radical feminism developed in two directions, an `equality' Marxist/ socialist variant and a
'difference' radical/cultural feminism.[ 16] The first aimed to feminize Marxist and socialist
perspectives by stressing the importance of exploitation and oppression based on gender
relations as well as class relations. However, men and women were not seen as being in
fundamental conflict once the `systems' of patriarchy and capitalism were dismantled.[ 17]
The difference or radical/cultural variant saw men and women as different in essence or at
least separated by a social divide that appeared to be as old as history itself,[ 18]
Affinity ecofeminism
One of the earliest statements of male/female difference in relation to the natural world was
Elizabeth Gould Davis's book The First Sex published in 1971:
Man is the enemy of nature: to kill, to root up to level off, to pollute, to destroy are his
instinctive reactions[ 19]
Woman ... is the ally of nature, and her instinct is to tend, to nurture, to encourage healthy
growth, and to preserve ecological balance. She is the natural leader of society and of
civilization, and the usurpation of her primeval authority by man has resulted in
uncoordinated chaos.[ 20]
Davis here presents two main arguments used by affinity ecofeminists. The first is that there
are essential differences between male and female. Attitudes to the natural world stem from
`instinctive reactions', or are related to differences in male and female psyche and
embodiment. The second is that women had at some point in history had `primeval authority'
that has been usurped by `man'. That before patriarchal domination of human societies,
woman-centred societies existed that were more egalitarian and ecologically benign. Davis's
work was subject to heavy criticism for indulging in `flights of fancy',[ 21] ignoring Black
women's history and being `an embarrassment to academic feminists'.[ 22] However her book
did strike a chord with the 'arresting implications of its title'[ 23] and Mary Daly recalls its
'incredible impact' on US feminism in the early 1970s.[ 24]
Andree Collard's Rape of the Wild is one of the classic affinity ecofeminist texts. For Collard
`the identity and destiny of woman and nature are merged'.[ 25] Patriarchy is the enemy of the
natural world while woman is to be its rescuer through her biological links to the natural
world:
Nothing links the human animal and nature so profoundly as woman's reproductive system
which enables her to share the experience of bringing forth and nourishing life with the rest of
the living world.[ 26]
Collard recognizes that not all women are mothers, or want to be, but argues that each woman
is united in a common mother-identity 'whether or not she personally experiences biological
mothering' as 'it is in this that woman is most truly a child of nature and in this natural
integrity lies the wellspring of her strength'.[ 27] Patriarchy on the other hand is also
biological, it is a `disease' that reveals itself in the treatment of women and animals.[ 28]
As with much ecofeminist analysis Collard sees the fundamental problem in the separatist
mentality and dominating dualism of patriarchy. It sets itself apart from nature (and women)
in a way that allows for the development of cruel and oppressive behaviour towards both.
This breakdown in the relationship between humanity (as patriarchy) and nature, Collard sees
as the cause of all 'divisive `isms'--sexism, racism, classism, ageism, militarism etc.'[ 29]
Although not all ecofeminists would accept Collard's assertion that women and nature are
biologically linked, the critique of hierarchical dualism, particularly in western culture and
structures Of power, is generally seen as being the source of our ecological woes.
Very few ecofeminists, including affinity ecofeminists, make such essentialist biological
claims for women's identity with nature. More frequently the power imbalance between men
and women is seen as an historical occurrence, albeit lost in the mists of pre-history. As we
saw with d'Eaubonne earlier, the aim is to challenge `patriarchal man' not men as such.
Claiming the origin of hierarchical dualism in pre-history means that the only evidence
available is archaeological or mythological. Adrienne Rich has described Elizabeth Gould
Davis as `the first contemporary feminist myth-maker', but she has been followed by many
others who claim the existence of a pre-historic `matriarchal society' drawing on evidence
from old myths, legends and archaeological discoveries.[ 30]
Claims for the existence of an ecologically benign and socially egalitarian matriarchal prehistory are very strongly linked to the feminist spirituality movement. Feminist spirituality
draws on many influences, theological claims for the existence of an immanent Goddess
before the emergence of a transcendental God, the nature spirituality of tribal peoples and
pagan religions generally.
Spiritualist ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak sees spirituality as a source of inspiration for
women in their struggle to change social realities.[ 31] Starhawk aka Miriam Somos, a
practitioner of Wicca (witchcraft) see rituals as a way of generating energy for political action
and the image of the Goddess as a way of understanding the immanence, that is the `aliveness'
that permeates the natural world:
spirit, sacred, Goddess, God--whatever you want to call it--is not found outside the world
somewhere--it's in the world: it is the world, and it is us. Our goal is not to get off the wheel
of birth nor to be saved from something. Our deepest experiences are experiences of
connection with the Earth and with the world.[ 32]
Spiritual ecofeminism is the exemplar of affinity ecofeminism combining a celebration of
women's biological role (mothering, nurturing) with a celebration of women's bodies and
sexuality. Women's embodiment is then caught up in a cosmology that tends to identify male
and female forces (transcendent God vs immanent Goddess). The body and sexuality are very
important to spirituality feminists. Rituals involving menstrual blood and other aspects of
women's bodies that are declared taboo or unclean in male religions are celebrated as are the
staging points of women's lives; menses, birth and menopause as represented by the maiden
(youth), mother (creativity) and crone (wisdom).
It is easy to see how such ideas can be mocked in a rationalist culture. However, the case
made by affinity ecofeminists is that male-dominated society has been empowered by a maleheaded spirituality and women need the same `energy'. The feminist spirituality movement
therefore hovers between a women-centred affinity and a more contingent view of spirituality
as Starhawk illustrates:
It depends on how I feel. When I feel weak, she is someone who can help and protect me.
When I feel strong, she is the symbol of my power. At other times I feel her as the natural
energy in my body and the world[ 33]
The impression is sometimes given that the Goddess really exists together with an eternal
`feminine' and other times that it is an expedient. If men have their Gods as a political
justification why cannot women have the Goddess? I would argue that such an approach to
spirituality/religion is no more `irrational' than the use/misuse of religion by male-dominated
political perspectives, from Tony Blair's Christian Socialism to the `born-again' politicians of
the United States.
The early association of ecofeminism with an affinity perspective and its marginalization
within feminism as a rather strange and mystical cult, can be explained largely by the
preponderance of North American radical/cultural ecofeminism and feminist eco-spirituality
within its best known texts.[ 34] The pre-eminence of cultural/spiritual ideas within the
movement led to charges of essentialism and universalism. Ecofeminism was seen as positing
a unity between all women and the natural world that appeared to exclude men and undermine
the struggles against biological determinism that feminists had waged.[ 35] It was also seen as
ignoring differences between women and structures of power other than patriarchy.[ 36] The
emphasis on mysticism and essentialism was also criticized for being irrational and tending to
emphasize personal transformation rather than political action.[ 37]
To assert that women are connected to the natural world through their bodies is very
problematic for feminists who have spent more than 200 years denying that biology is
destiny.[ 38] Social/ist ecofeminists avoid the dilemmas posed by affinity ecofeminism by
seeing the connection between women and nature in their common experience of being
exploited and subordinated by capitalist/ social/patriarchal domination rather than claiming
that women and nature have a common identity.
Social/ist ecofeminism
Women have been culture's sacrifice to nature[ 39]
For social/ist ecofeminists the relationship between women and nature is a socially
constructed one. However, the basis of that social construction differs. For those who follow
Murray Bookchin's eco~anarchism it can be seen as the emergence of hierarchy in human
society,[ 40] although this is as lost in prehistory as the affinity ecofeminist's Goddess. Others
see it in the emergence of Western rationalism with Greek culture,[ 41] in the scientific
revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,[ 42] or the world domination of
patriarchal capitalism and the `development' process.[ 43]
Ynestra King was one of the earliest activists in the ecofeminist movement in the United
States and her ideas have been set out in a number of articles.[ 44] She was a founder and
organizer of the Women and Life on Earth Conference in 1980 and of the Women's Pentagon
Action in 1981. King was originally connected with Bookchin's Institute for Social Ecology
and therefore represents a loosely anarchist approach. From her earliest writings King rejects
the assertion that women `naturally' align themselves with nature or that this alignment is
natural. Women are `naturalized' by patriarchal culture. However, King argues that women
should make a conscious political decision not to reject that alignment but rather:
recognize that although the nature/culture opposition is a product of culture we can,
nonetheless consciously choose not to sever the woman nature connection by joining male
culture. Rather we can use it as a vantage point for creating a different kind of culture and
politics that would integrate intuitive/spiritual and rational forms of knowledge, embracing
both science and magic insofar as they enable us to transform the nature/culture distinction
itself and to envision and create a free, ecological society.[ 45] We can see immediately from
this passage that it would not be wise to make a sharp distinction between King's ideas and
those of the affinity ecofeminists, particularly in the use of spirituality as a critical/political
force.
King sees `western industrial civilization' as having been built 'in opposition to nature'. This
process has interacted dialectically with the subjugation of women `because women are
believed to be closer to nature in this culture against nature.[ 46] This King argues, gives
women a `particular stake in ending the domination of nature'.[ 47] She sees the domination of
men over women as the `prototype' of all other forms of domination so that 'potentially
feminism creates a concrete global community of interests through interconnection with other
dominations `its challenge ... extends beyond sex to social domination of all kinds because the
domination of sex, race and class, and nature are mutually reinforcing'.[ 48] Ecofeminism can
form the basis of `a decentralized global movement founded on common interests but
celebrating diversity and opposing all forms of domination and violence'.[ 49]
King's work presents the core elements common to both affinity and social/ist ecofeminism: a
critique of the dualism of (western) patriarchal society that makes a distinction between
humanity (man) and the natural world; the subordinate position of women in that dualism so
that women are associated with, and materially experience a relationship with the natural
world; the necessity of creating a non-destructive connectedness between humanity (man) and
the natural world; the centrality of women to creating that connectedness. King rejects the
idea of women abandoning their association with nature and joining men on an equal basis in
the 'public world' as that would mean embracing women- and nature-hating cultural forms.
The distinction between King's view and affinity ecofeminism lies in King's assertion that
women's `ecological sensitivity and life orientation' is socially constructed. Consequently it
`could be socialized right out of us' again. There is no reason to believe that women placed in
positions of patriarchal power will act any differently from men'.[ 50] However, where
social/ist ecofeminism does come close to affinity ecofeminism is in the view that all human
beings are rooted in nature, they are embodied beings. However, women are not more rooted
essentially than men, it is just that men are less rooted in practice. To put it another way, men
have used their power to escape the consequences of their rootedness or embodiment. For
King women are connected to nature as a consequence of the patriarchal rejection of
embodiment:
It is as if women were entrusted with and have kept the dirty little secret that humanity
emerges from nonhuman nature into society in the life of the species and the person.[ 51]
In the process of nurturing, the `socialization of the organic', women form the `bridge between
nature and culture'.[ 52] Patriarchal society's objectification of both women and natural world
means that women have a `deep and particular understanding' of nature-hating patriarchy
`though our natures and through our life experience as women'.[ 53]
It is clear from such a statement that King is bringing together elements of affinity (our
natures) and social construction (our experience). Women as `keepers of the home, the
children and the community' develop `nurturant powers' which they use daily whether or not
they are biological mothers. A similar point was made by Collard. For King it is through their
particular experience and understanding as women, that ecofeminists can develop an attitude
to the natural world that is `about connectedness and wholeness of theory and practice. It
asserts the special strength and integrity of every living thing' ,[ 54]
Far from rejecting affinity ecofeminism, King praises the contribution to ecofeminism from
radical cultural feminism. She sees it as a `deeply womanidentified movement' that by
celebrating what is different about women has challenged male culture rather than as liberal
feminism `strategizing to become part of it'.[ 55] Acknowledging that radical cultural
feminism tended to overlook the differences between women, King argues that the feminist
spirituality movement that grew out of radical cultural feminism has been better able to bridge
the gap between western and non-western women. However, feminist spirituality is weakened
by its emphasis on personal transformation as a route to emancipation. This cannot provide a
solution to current forms of domination without a confrontation with political realities as
`human beings can't simply jump off, or out of history':
These indigenous, embodied, Earth-centred spiritual traditions can plant seeds in the
imaginations of people who are the products of dualistic cultures, but White Westerners
cannot use them to avoid the responsibility of their own history.[ 56]
To confront history King turns to a socialist analysis:
Ecofeminism takes from socialist feminism the idea that women have been historically
positioned at the biological dividing line where the organic emerges into the social. The
domination of nature originates in society and therefore must be resolved in society.[ 57]
However she feels that the analysis of women's domination has been better expressed in
Murray Bookchin's analysis of the origins of hierarchy in society than in traditional socialist
analysis. Bookchin sees the origins of hierarchy in the subordination of women and the young
by the old.[ 58] The socialist emphasis on class domination on the other hand has focused on
the sphere of production under capitalism with women's role in the sphere of reproduction
seen as secondary, if not diversionary.
Despite the long history of women's subordination, King does not, in the end, see any
fundamental conflict between men and women. A cultural form has emerged which is
ecologically destructive and socially unjust. In response `thoughtful human beings must use
the fullness of our sensibility and intelligence to push ourselves intentionally to another stage
of evolution'.[ 59] In this process women are to play a special role
It is the moment where women recognize ourselves as agents of history--yes even unique
agents--and knowingly bridge the classic dualism between spirit and matter, art and politics,
reason and intuition. This is the potentiality of a rational reenchantment. This is the project of
ecofeminsm.[ 60]
Socialist ecofeminism
An early advocate of a more specifically socialist ecofeminism was Carolyn Merchant,
although the main focus of her critique was the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th
centuries. However, she saw the political solution as `revolutionizing economic structures in a
direction that would equalize female and male work options and reform a capitalist system
that creates profits at the expense of nature and working people'.[ 61] In a later essay
Merchant expands on the relationship between ecofeminism and other feminist perspectives[
62] and argues for socialist ecofeminism as part of a radical ecology movement:
Although cultural feminism has delved more deeply into the woman-nature connection, social
and socialist ecofeminism have the potential for a more thorough critique of domination and
for a liberating social justice[ 63].
For Merchant socialist ecofeminism sees environmental problems as 'rooted in the rise of
capitalist patriarchy and the ideology that the Earth and nature can be exploited for human
progress through technology'.[ 64] The basic source of the problem is the sexual division of
labour as humanity tries to divorce itself from nature through the productive system. Men
predominate in the sphere of commodified production while the domestic sphere is serviced
by women's unpaid labour. As a result, both women and men become alienated from each
other and from their labour. The productive process itself is alienated from the natural world.
The natural world is, in turn, transformed, eroded and polluted in the course of production for
profit. Even so, the natural world remains the basis of human life.
Nature is therefore both the necessary basis of human life and the result of historical and
social forces. It is both a `natural' and a social construct. The same is true for gender. It is
created both by biology and social practices.[ 65] Socialist ecofeminism therefore sees both
the natural world and the human world as active agents, as material forces. Ecological and
biological conditions, social production and reproduction are all forces creating and shaping
human society. What is required, therefore, is a multilevelled structural analysis that sees a
dialectical relationship between production and reproduction as well as between society and
nature.[ 66] Socialist ecofeminism steers a course between a natural conception of `nature' and
the idea of social construction as well as between patriarchy and capitalism as systems of
exploitation.
Merchant argues that a materialist analysis of women's social position provides a better basis
for an ecofeminist politics than a spiritual assertion of women's difference, as `a politics
grounded in women's culture, experience and values could be seen as reactionary'.[ 67]
However, Merchant does share with affinity ecofeminism an emphasis on the importance of
reproduction (mothering, caring, nurturing), but uses these insights to challenge the
distinction between production and reproduction in capitalist society. Merchant also points to
the similarities of solutions that ecofeminists offer even if their analysis or preferred
mechanisms of change differ:
Weaving together the many strands of the ecofeminist movement is the concept of
reproduction construed in its broadest sense to include the continued biological and social
reproduction of human life and the continuance of life on earth.[ 68]
Merchant sees ecofeminism as part of a broader movement of `radical ecology' that embraces
theoretical and practical struggles across the globe. This movement has not yet produced `a
worldwide socialist order', but it does offer `an alternative vision of the world in race, class,
sex and age barriers have been eliminated and basic human needs have been fulfilled.[ 69]
The task of the movement is to raise public consciousness of the dangers to human health and
non-human nature of maintaining the status quo and to `push mainstream society toward
greater equality and social justice'.[ 70]
Although Merchant sees a compatibility between socialist feminism and ecofeminism,
socialist feminists have been very distrustful of attachment of socialist feminist analysis to
ecofeminism.[ 71] They see ecofeminism as in danger of accepting the `naturalizing' of
women, trapping them in the sphere of reproduction, while diverting attention from the power
of capital and wider struggles around social justice. In consequence ecofeminist ideas have
made very little headway in countries like Britain where socialist feminism is dominant.
Ecofeminism in the South
Third World women are bringing the concern with living and survival back to centrestage in
human history. In recovering the chances for the survival of all life, they are laying the
foundations for the recovery of the feminine principle in nature and society, and through it the
recovery of the earth as sustainer and provider[ 72]
While ecofeminism has largely been developed by white women in the North, the Indian
ecofeminist Vandana Shiva has been one of its most influential voices worldwide. She is
perhaps best known for her book, Staying Alive. Inspired by `the many women, peasants and
tribals of India who have been my teachers in thinking ecologically', Shiva abandoned her
career as a nuclear physicist and devoted herself to campaigning against ecologically
destructive 'maldevelopmerit'.
Maldevelopment for Shiva, has been created by the North's imperialist imposition of its model
of modernity on the whole globe. The `twin pillars' of this model are economic development
and modern scientific knowledge. As a result the world is becoming effectively a
`monoculture' with a consequent loss of diversity of plant and animal life and of peoples and
cultures.[ 73] At the heart of this development is violence, a violation of nature and women:
'this violence against nature and women is built into the very mode of perceiving both, and
forms the basis of the current development paradigm'.[ 74] The diversity of the natural world
is sacrificed for industrialized agriculture and genetically engineered crops. The subsistence,
use-value based way of life of women and peasant peoples, is sacrificed for profit-driven
commercial production and trade. The west she argues has justified its intervention by the
assumption that traditional economies are poor economies:
The paradox and crisis of development arises from the mistaken identification of culturally
perceived poverty with real material poverty, and the mistaken identification of the growth of
commodity production as better satisfaction of needs.[ 75]
Equally western `developers' have made false assumptions about the economic position of
women in the South. Drawing on Ester Boserup's analysis of women's role in subsistence
production.[ 76] Shiva shows how western patriarchal assumptions about the male domination
of production process destroyed the resource base for women's subsistence. `Women are
devalued first, because their work cooperates with nature's processes, and second, because
work which satisfies needs and ensures sustenance is devalued in general'.[ 77] This denial of
the `feminine principle' in development leads to a one-sided view of resources and resource
use. Maldevelopment only sees a river as a resource to be dammed and put to technological
use, and not as a `commons' a communal resource that meets the water needs of local
communities. As women are the main water users and water carriers, they suffer most if
supplies are interrupted.
Maldevelopment, is `a development bereft of the feminine, the conservation, the ecological
principle'[ 78] The aim of the development process is to pull all resources and labour into the
commodity form, to be circulated via the market. This leaves no resources for women's
subsistence or for `nature to maintain her production of renewable resources'.[ 79] While
economic development undermines the subsistence base through pulling all resources into the
capitalist market, scientific development applies technologies developed in laboratories
without any real understanding of the 'web of life' on the ground. Within this `web of life' are
all the knowledges of traditional peoples, `rural women, peasants, tribals who live in, and
derive sustenance from nature, have a systematic ands deep knowledge of nature's processes
of reproducing wealth,[ 80] It is this wealth of knowledge which is being destroyed by the
western `monoculture of the mind'.
Following Mies,[ 81] Shiva argues that western patriarchy has effectively conquered women
through the dualistic nature of its philosophy and science and the sexual division of labour
under industrialism. Western patriarchal culture broke the connection between society and
nature and between women and nature, so that the particular connection of women to the
natural world through their experience of the `production of life' has been undermined. The
characteristics of women's traditional relationship to nature was that:
(a) Their interaction with nature, with their own nature as well as the external environment,
was a reciprocal process. They conceived of their own bodies as being productive in the same
way as they conceived of external nature being so
(b) Although they appropriate nature, their appropriation does not constitute a relationship of
dominance or a property relation. Women are not owners of their own bodies or of the earth,
but they co-operate with their bodies and with the earth in order to `let grow and to make
grow'
(c) As producers of new life they also became the first subsistence producers and the
inventors of the first productive economy, implying from the beginning social production and
the creation of social relations, i.e. of society and history.[ 82]
Mies and Shiva have elaborated their ideas in a book of essays on ecofeminism. For them `an
ecofeminist perspective propounds the need 1or a new cosmology and a new anthropology
which recognizes that life in nature (which includes human beings) is maintained by means of
co-operation, mutual love and care'.[ 83] Mies and Shiva reject any division within the
ecofeminist movement based on 'spiritual' versus `political ecofeminism. While criticizing the
commercial appropriation of `oriental spiritualism' they claim that an assertion that the earth
should be treated as sacred is not in conflict with a materialist and active politics.
Mies and Shiva have been criticized for leaning towards essentialisma[ 84] and for building an
apolitical and near mythical view of women's conditions in peasant and tribal communities
while ignoring the patriarchal nature of non-western cultures.[ 85] Nevertheless there is a
critical energy in Mies and Shiva's work and the complexity of their analysis, although it is at
times contradictory, belies a simple categorization.
Women and nature--a material relation?
One essential feature of all ecological feminist positions is that they give positive value to a
connection of women with nature which was previously, in the west, given negative cultural
value and which was the main ground of women's devaluation and oppression. Val
Plumwood[ 86]
While ecofeminists may differ in their approach, they are united in their critique of the
patriarchal nature of western society. The current threat to the natural world is seen as
resulting from a pattern of hierarchical dualisms that set culture against nature, the life of the
mind against the life of the body, scientific knowledge against indigenous or vernacular
knowledge: abstract reason against feelings and emotions. Western patriarchy constructs a
public world of politics, professionalism, commerce, production and social life that is separate
from the private world of family and domestic relations, a division that gives supremacy to
men and subordinates women. In this sense the traditional aims of political movements such
as individual freedom, self-determination and equality are seen as being based on the false
premise of a patriarchal conception of the public citizen and public life. Such demands would
only be relevant in the context of a fundamental reorientation of man/woman relations and
human-nature relations.
While ecofeminists agree about the nature of patriarchy and its associated structures
(scientific rationality, capitalism/industrialism, competitive individualism) in western society,
its origin and central dynamic is more contentious. Only the most essentialist affinity
ecofeminist would claim the problem is maleness and as such. Even those who argue for the
existence of a matriarchal pre-history see patriarchy emerging as a socio-cultural form not a
genetically determined trait. Patriarchy's socio-cultural heritage has been identified by
philosophers as lying in `the logic of domination' inherent in Greek and Enlightenment dualist
rationalism[ 87] and by social theorists as lying in the sexual division of labour and the social
construction of the public and private division,[ 88] These are, of course, not mutually
exclusive as analytical frameworks, but they do differ in their line of attack upon patriarchy.
A philosophical approach focuses upon a critique of values and ideas, whereas an analysis
based on the division of labour looks to a struggle around socio-economic structures.
What unites all ecofeminists (and deep ecologists) is their emphasis on the centrality of
human embeddedness in the natural world. Robyn Eckersley has defined econcentrism as:
an ecologically informed philosophy of internal relatedness, according to which all organisms
are not simply interrelated with their environment but also constituted by those very
environmental interrelationships[ 89]
While most ecofeminists would want to be very careful about what is meant by `constitution'
here (and certainly would not accept biological/ecological determinism) they place a key
emphasis on the importance of human embodiment as physical being. The subordination of
women is seen as related to their identification with human embodiment and disproportionate
responsibility for the consequences and needs of embodiment. The despoilation of nature is
seen as resulting from western society's refusal to acknowledge the consequences of human
embodiment and ecological embeddedness. For ecofeminism gender differences in the
experience of embodiment is the key to understanding the relationship between man/woman
and hu(man)/nature relations. As Ynestra King pointed out women are the 'bridge' between
`Man'/culture and nature within western patriarchy. As Plumwood has argued, women are not
`one' with nature but they have been `thrown into an alliance'.[ 90]
In confronting dualism both affinity and contingency ecofeminists ask us to re-value the
experience of women in patriarchal society. For some affinity ecofeminists this becomes an
end in itself, the realization of the `feminine' in women's bodies, natures or as a spiritual force.
For other affinity ccofeminists and social fist ecofeminists the re-valuing of women is the
means to challenge hierarchical dualisms. An emphasis on the particular role of women in
challenging divisions in society raises the questions about the relative importance of other
inequalities and differences between women. What do we mean by `women' in this context?
Are we talking about an alliance between all women and nature? Some ecofeminists can
certainly be criticized for over-romanticizing women and women's history, for asserting a
`totalizing' image of a universalized `woman' and ignoring women's differences. Affinity
ecofeminism can come very close to biological determinism (if not embrace it completely)
while being unable to explain why many women adopt the western `patriarchal male' lifestyle.
However, it is important not to let these very real criticisms obscure the complexity of the
arguments that ecofeminists are making and deflect us from the radical perspective that
ecofeminism can offer. Ecofeminists can certainly be criticized for often using
`women/woman' in an unqualified way, although most stress the importance of the link
between sexism and other oppressions, if not always their cross-cutting nature.
It is also unclear how far environmental struggles can be seen as (eco)feminist even when
women are extensively involved. Cecile Jackson, for example, argues that peasant
environmental struggles are being falsely seen as purely women's struggles.[ 91] Omvedt on
the other hand sees women's involvement as radicalizing peasant struggles in an ecofeminist
direction.[ 92] Equally, there is the problem of the existence of patriarchy in non-western,
non-ecologically destructive cultures. The ecofeminist identification of western patriarchy as
the main agent of the subjugation of women and nature has been seen by some feminists,
particularly in the South, as encouraging a benign attitude toward non-western patriarchy.[ 93]
Ecofeminism's emphasis on patriarchy can also be seen as deflecting attention from racism,
imperialism and capitalism as agents in gender' oppression and ecological destruction. Mies et
al. on the other hand have argued that women suffer disproportionately both in social and
ecological terms, where there are patterns of exploitation based on colonialism, racism or
worker exploitation.[ 94] While Stephanie Lahar has asked 'can ecofeminism speak to many
different people in potentially overlapping, but sometimes extremely disparate spheres of
activity?', other commentators have pointed to the way in which women and environmental
issues are increasingly being brought together in an international context.[ 96]
One area in which there is general agreement among ecofeminists is the kind of society they
want. It would be egalitarian and ecologically sustainable. There would no longer be a sexual
division of labour and work and life would be integrated within the local community. This
ideal is shared by many green thinkers and is perhaps the most utopian and ideological aspect
of ecofeminism. The problem lies in the gap between social analysis and political
mobilization towards these goals. Confrontation with the cultural and social structures of the
North has led ecofeminism to become a battle with, and largely within, the western
sociocultural heritage. This is perhaps how it should be. Ruether in 1975 called upon
feminists in the United States to challenge patriarchal power within their own society. Maria
Mies, a German with a long history of involvement with, and support for, women in India
asks that we challenge power `in the heart of the beast'.[ 97] As ecofeminism enters academe
that means engaging in a challenge to mainstream (and malestream) ways of thinking as well
as engaging with other radical perspectives.
Despite the very real criticisms that may be made of ecofeminism I would argue that as a
social theory and a political movement it has a great deal to offer. However, ecofeminism also
suffers from many of the problems experienced by Marxism. While it may be theoretically
possible to establish a structural relationship between (most) women's socio-economic
position and the destruction of the natural environment, the question of political agency
remains. While affinity ecofeminism may be able to claim that women will spontaneously
express their allegiance with the natural world, contingency ecofeminism can make no such
assumption. Any analysis of material relations will still need to be accompanied by an
ideological challenge to the status quo.
Notes and references
1. R. Radford Ruether, New Woman, New Earth (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975), p.
2{)4.
2. S. Lahar, `Ecofeminist theory and grassroots politics', Hypatia, 6 (1991), pp. 28-45.
3. M. Melior, Breaking the Boundaries: Towards a Feminist, Green Socialism (London:
Virago, 1992), p. 50.
4. For a very useful summary of ecofeminist positions see C. Merchant, Radical Ecology
(London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 186-187.
5. K. J. Warren, Ecological Feminism (London: Routledge, 1994); V. Plumwood, Feminism
and the Mastery' of Nature (London: Routledge, 1993).
6. A. Dobson, Green Political Thought (London: Unwin Hyman, 1995).
7. V. Plumwood, `The ecopolitics debate and the politics of nature; in Warren, op. cit., Ref 5,
pp. 64-87.
8. These arguments are developed further in my forthcoming book Feminism and Ecology.
9. J. Plant, Green Line, 48 (1986/7), p. 15.
10. D. H. Meadows, J. Randers and W. W. Behrens, The Limits to Growth (New York:
University Books, 1972).
11. A. Naess, `The shallow and the deep, long range ecology movement', Inquiry, 16 (19'73),
pp. 95-99.
12. F. D'Eaubonne, Le Feminisme ou La Mort (Paris: Pierre Horay, 1974).
13. J. Biehl, `What is social ecofeminism?' Green Perspectives, 11 (1988), pp. 1-8.
14. V. Kuletz, `Eco-feminist interview with Barbara Holland-Cunz', Capilalism, Nature,
Socialism, 3 (1992), pp. 63-78; A. Salleh, 'Nature, woman, labour, capital: living the deepest
contradiction', in M. O'Connor, Ed., Is Capitalism Sustainable (New York: Guilford Press,
1994), p. 106.
15. F. d'Eaubonne, in E. Marks and 1. de Courtivron, Eds, New French Feminisms: An
Anthology (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980), pp. 64-67.
16. M. Gatens, Feminism and Philosophy.' Perspectives on Difference and Equality
(Cambridge: Polity, 1991).
17. M. Barrett, Women's Oppression Today.' Problems in Marxist Feminist analysis (London:
Verso, 1980). Revised edition 1988.
18. E. Reed, Women and Evolution: From Matriarchal Clan to Patriarchal Family (New
York: Pathfinder, 1975).
19. E. Gould Davis, The First Sex (New York: P. Putman & Sons, 1971), p. 335.
20. Davis, ibid., p. 336.
21. R. Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade (London: Unwin, 1990), p. 149, first published 1987.
22. A. Rich, Of Woman Born (London: Virago, 1991), p. 91, first published 1976.
23. Rich, ibid., p. 91.
24. Reported in A. Collard (with J. Contrucci), Rape of the Wild (London: The Women's
Press, 1988), p. xi.
25. Collard, ibid., p. 137.
26. Collard, ibid., p. 102.
27. Collard, ibid., p. 102.
28. Collard, ibid., p. 1.
29. Collard, ibid., p. 3.
30. M. Stone, When God was a Woman (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1976); M. Gimbutas, The
Goddesses and Go& of Old Europe: Myths and Cult Images 7000-3500 BC (California:
University of California Press, 1982).
31. C. Spretnak, The Politics of Women's Spirituality (New York: Doubleday, 1982) and
`Ecofeminism: our roots and flowering', in I. Diamond and G. Feman Orenstein, Eds,
Reweaving the World (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1990), pp. 3-14.
32. Starhawk, `Power, authority and mystery: ecofeminism and earth-based spirituality', in
Diamond ibid., p. 73.
33. Reported in C. P. Christ, `Spiritual quest and women's experience', in C. P. Christ and J.
Plaistow, Eds, Womanspirit Rising (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), pp. 278-279.
34. See for example S. Griffin, Women and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her (New York:
Harper & Row, 1978); M. Daly, Gyn/Ecology.' The Metaethics of Radical Feminism
(London: The Women's Press, 1991 ), first published 1978; Collard, op. cit., Ref. 24;
Diamond, op. cit., Ref. 31; J. Plant, Ed., Healing the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism
(London: Green Print, 1989).
35. J. Evans, `Ecofeminism and the politics of the gendered self', in A. Dobson and P.
Lucardie, Eds, The Politics of Nature (London: Routledge, 1993), pp. 177-189; L. Segal, Is
The Future Female? (London: Virago, 1987).
36. B. Agarwal, `The gender and environment debate: lessons from India', Feminist Studies,
18 (1992), pp. 119-158; C. Jackson, 'Gender analysis and environmentalisms', in M. Redcliff
and T. Benton, Eds, Social Theory and the Global Environment (London: Routledge, 1994),
pp. 113-149.
37. J. Biehl, Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics (Montreal: Black Rose Books,
1991).
38. S. de Beuvoir, The Second Sex (New York: Random House, 1968), first published 1949; J.
Sayers, Biological Politics: Feminist and Anti-deminist Perspectives (London: Tavistock
Publications, 1982).
39. Y. King, `Healing the wounds: feminism, ecology and nature/culture dualism', in
Diamond, op. cit., Ref 31, p. 115.
40. M. Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom (California: Cheshire Books, 1982), pp. 62ff.
41. Plumwood, op cit., Ref. 7, p. 69-103.
42. C. Merchant, The Death ((Nature (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), first published 1980.
43. M. Mies and V. Shiva, Ecofeminism (London: Zed Books, 1993), pp. 55-91.
44. Y. King, `Feminism and the revolt of nature', Heresies, 13 (1981), pp. 12-16; `The
ecofeminist imperative', in L. Caldicott & S. Leland, Reclaim the Earth (London: The
Women's Press, 1983), pp. 9-14; `Toward and ecological feminism and a feminist ecology', in
J. Rothschild, lid., Machina Ex Dea (Oxford: Pergamon, 1983), pp. 118-129, also reproduced
in Plant, 1989, op. cit., Ref. 34, pp. 18-28, and `Healing the wounds', in Diamond, 1990, op.
cit., Ref. 31, pp. 106-121, also reproduced in A.M. Jaggar and S. R. Bordo, Eds,
Gender/Body/Knowledge (NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1989), pp. 115-32.
45. King, 1983, op. cit., Ref. 44, p. 123, italics in the original.
46. King, ibid., p. 119.
47. King, ibid., p. 118.
48. King, ibid., p. 120.
49. King, ibid., pp. 119-120.
50. King, ibid., pp. 122-123.
51. King, 1990, op. cit., p. 116.
52. King, ibid., p. l l6.
53. King, 1983, op. cit., Reft 44, p. I1.
54. King, ibid., p. 10.
55. King, 1990, op. cit., Ref. 44, p. Ill.
56. King, ibid., p. 113.
57. King, ibid., pp. 116-117, italics in the original.
58. M. Bookchin, Remaking Society (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1989), pp. 75ff.
59. King, 1990, op. cit., Ref. 44, p. 121.
60. King, ibid., pp. 120-121,
61. Merchant, 1983, op. cit., Ref. 42.
62. C. Merchant, `Ecofeminism and feminist theory', in Diamond, op. cit., Ref. 31.
63. Merchant, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 184.
64. Merchant, op. cit., Ref. 31, p. i03.
65. Merchant, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 236.
66. Merchant, op. cit., Ref. 31, p. 104 and op. cit., Ref. 4, pp. 186--187.
67. Merchant, op. cit., Ref. 31, p. 102.
68. Merchant, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 209.
69. Merchant, op. cit., pp. 235-236.
70. Merchant, op. cit., p. 235.
71. See Segal, op. cit., Ref. 35, Agarwal, op. cit., Ref. 36, Jackson, op. cit., Ref. 36.
72. V. Shiva, Staying Alive (London: Zed Books, 1989).
73. V. Shiva, Monocultures of the Mind (London: Zed Books, 1993),
74. Shiva, op. cit., Ref. 72, p. xvi.
75. Shiva, ibid., p. 13.
76. E, Boserup, Women's Role in Economic Development (New York: St Martin's Press,
1970).
77. Shiva, op. cit., Ref. 72, p. 7.
78. Shiva, ibid., p. 4.
79. Shiva, ibid., p. 9.
80. Shiva, ibid., p. 219.
81. M. Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale (London: Zed Books, 1986).
82. Shiva, op. cit,, Ref. 72, p. 43; Mies, ibid., p. 56.
83. Mies, op. cit., Ref. 43, p. 6.
84. R. Braidotti, E. Charkiewicz, S. Hausler and S. Wieringa, Women, the Environment and
Sustainable Development (London: Zed Books, 1994), p. 94.
85. C. Jackson, `Radical enviromental myths: a gender perspective', New Left Review, 210
(1995), 124-140, 129.
86. Plumwood, op. cit., Ref. 7, p.8.
87. See for example, Warren, op. cit., Ref. 5, Plumwood, ibid.
88. M. Mellor, `Ecofeminism and ecosocialism: dilemmas of essentialism and materialism',
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 3 (1992), pp. 1-20; A. Salleh, op cit., Ref. 14. See also Mellor,
op. cit., Ref. 3; Melior, op. cit., Ref. 8.
89. R. Eckersley, Environmentalism and Political Theory, (London: UCL Press, 1992), p. 49,
italics in the original.
90. Plumwood, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 21.
91. Jackson, op. cit., Ref. 85, p. 126.
92. G. Omvedt, `Green earth, women's power, human liberation: women in peasant
movements in India', in V. Shiva, Ed., Close to Home (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers,
1994).
93. See Agarwal, op. cit., Ref. 36.
94. M. Mies, V. Bennholdt-Thompson and C. von Werlhof, Women: the last colony (London:
Zed Books, 1988).
95. Lahar, op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 29.
96. M. Waring, 1f Women Counted (London: Macmillan, 1989); W. Harcourt, Ed., Feminist
Perspectives on Sustainable Development (London: Zed Books, 1994); Braidotti, Ref. 84;
Shiva, op. cit., Ref. 92.
97. Mies, op. cit., Ref. 43, p. 1.
~~~~~~~~
By MARY MELLOR
Copyright of Journal of Political Ideologies is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.