Chapter Four

Eco-feminism

Ecofeminism is a twin concept encompassing both ecology and feminism. It is

justified by saying that ecology or environment is closely associated with female. It

states that exploitation of nature is at par with exploitation of women and vice-versa.

Therefore, to take care of nature is at par with to take care of women. This is the

meaning of the term ‘ecofeminism’. Ecological feminism or ecofeminism refers to a

series of theoretical and practical positions bringing feminist insight to environmental

philosophy. Feminist theorists began formulating theories explicitly addressing

similarities and connections between sexism and abuses of nature in the early 1970s.

Even though there is a variety of eco-feminist positions, but eco-feminists agree that

there is a link between dominations of women and dominations of nature.

Accordingly, it is assumed that an understanding of one is crucial to the understanding

of the other. Eco-feminists further argue that an environmental philosophy that fails to

attend to these important links will be theoretically and practically deficient. Eco-

feminists have tried to develop various connections between feminism and ecology.

The development includes historical, conceptual, empirical, epistemological, ethical,

theoretical and political connections. Each of these will be explained in turn.

Historical Connections:

According to ecological feminists, a historical look at the ways in which women and

other oppressed groups have been associated with the natural and the ways in which

nature has been associated with the ‘womanly’ or with the ‘feminine’ in western

contexts reveal important connections. In this regard, a lot of literature can be found

in both Griffin and Merchant. In fact, Merchant illustrates how the emergence of

78
modern science in Europe in the 15th to 17th centuries resulted in a rewriting of the

world view. She contends that this shift in the world-view from the organic to the

mechanistic was a major vehicle for the devaluation of both women and nature.36

Here, Merchant observes a paradigmatic shift- a shift from the earth centered to the

sun-centered world view was a significant factor. According to the characteristic of

Renaissance and pre-Renaissance thought, earth was associated with the two aspects

of womanliness, namely, nurturing mother and uncontrollable female who could be

violent and chaotic. This shifting from earth centered to sun-centered actually meant

replacing a women centered universe with a male centered one. This is so because the

sun was associated with maleness. The Aristotelian association of activity equally

reflected a shift from earth to the sun. This was shown in the 16th century by

Copernicus, ‘the earth conceives by the sun and becomes pregnant with annual

offspring.’37 Merchant further contends that such change could occur not only on

earth but everywhere. This sun-centered view actually broke the natural order. As a

result of that the part of womanliness that became the dominant conception of nature

was the wild, violent side. The other association of nature as a nurturing mother that

was part of the organic approach became less prevalent. Here Merchant quotes

Machiavelli, “Fortune is a woman and it is necessary if you wish to master her, to

conquer her by force; and it can be seen that she lets herself be overcome by the bold

rather than by those who proceed coldly, and therefore like a woman, she is always a

friend to the young because they are less cautious, fiercer, and master her with greater

audacity.”38

36
Merchant, 1983.
37
Copernicus, 1983, p.7.
38
Merchant, p.130.

79
This is one web through which womanliness has been disrupted. There are other

disruptions in the social order, including the breakdown of the federal system, brought

fear of chaos. Merchant reveals that women’s increased visibility in social life, such

as, in the Protestant movement in northern Europe, and the long reign of Elizabeth I,

was threatening to the social order. At any rate, fear of women by the men in control

reached a peak in the European enchantress pursuits. We witness the same web in

Francis Bacon. It is often discussed by ecological feminists how the association of

women and nature has been dangerous for both. Bacon’s justification of the scientific

method involves likening nature to a woman being tried for witchcraft. His mentor,

James 1 of England was a strong supporter of witch trials. In this regard, Bacon

added, “For you have but to follow and bound nature and as it were bound nature in

her wanderings, and you will be able when you like to lead and drive her afterword to

the same place again …. Neither ought a man to make a scruple of entering and

penetrating those holes and corners, when the inquisition of truth is his whole object -

as your majesty has shown in his own example.”39 The eco-feminist, namely,

Merchant has shown how the twin dominations of woman and nature have been

intertwined historically and conceptually.

Value Dualisms and the Logic of Domination

We think that value dualism is the main reason of the theory of ecofeminism. In

environmental ethics two different values are recognized, such as, instrumental value

and non-instrumental value. Non-instrumental or intrinsic value are superior to

instrumental or use value. It is then said that nature has only instrumental value. Now,

if nature is at par with woman, as ecofeminism suggests, then woman has

instrumental value as well. In this regard it can be said that women are inferior to

39
Bacon, p.168.

80
men. Thus, the logic of domination comes from value dualism. Analysts of value

dualism have played a major role in ecological feminist critiques of western

patriarchal cultures. In this regard, Val Plumwood offers one of the most

comprehensive discussions of dualisms and dualistic thinking. According to

Plumwood, a value dualism is a disjunctive pair in which the disjuncts are seen as

oppositional and exclusive, where one component of the disjunct ascribed a higher

value than the other. Many ecological feminists argue that value dualism is actually

linked with reason/nature dualism deeply rooted in the conceptual framework of

western patriarchal cultures. This dualism has far sighted implication as well. It is

thought to form the basis for a series of related dualisms in which whatever is

associated with reason is viewed as fundamentally different and superior to whatever

is associated with nature. Examples of such dualized pair involve not only

reason/nature and masculine/feminine, but also mental vs. physical, civilized vs.

primitive, and human vs. nature. These pairs function to legitimise a number of

oppressions, including, sex, race, class oppression, which can all be seen in terms of

the central dualism underlying the system that of reason vs. nature. Having said this, it

should be kept in mind that not all differences are dualistic in nature and more

importantly, deconstructing value dualisms does not mean denying all differences

between dualized pairs. In our sense, the problem with value dualisms lies in the

construction of dualized pairs as absolutely different in morally relevant ways which

eventually leads to the construction and justification of mortal hierarchies.

Features of Dualism

The construction of dualized identities involves five features, according to Plumwood.

These are:

81
(i) Backgrounding, the oppressors’ creation of a dependency on the oppressed while

simultaneously denying that dependency.

(ii) Radical exclusion, constructing supposed differences between the oppression and

the oppressed in terms of radical difference in order to justify subordination of the

oppressed.

(iii) Incorporation, the construction of the devalued side of a dialyzed pair as lacking

morally relevant features associated with the other side.

(iv) Instrumentalism, the construction of groups seen as morally inferior, lacking any

morally important independent interests.

(v) Homogenization, the denial of differences between those on the underside of

dialyzed pairs (seeing all women or all slaves as the same).

All these features cited above reflect the non-humanistic attitude towards women and

nature. Karren J. Warren, a prominent feminist, explores major conceptual

connections between the domination of women by men and the domination of nature

by humans. She argues that both depend on the ‘logic of domination’. The logic of

domination speaks about the differences between entities and thereby asserts that such

differences constitute the moral superiority of one group over the other. The members

of the superior entities dominate over the member of inferior entities or groups.

Warren’s logic of domination is argumentatively given below:40

(AI) Humans do, plants do not, have the capacity to consciously change the

community in which they live.

(A2) Whatever has this capacity is morally superior to whatever doesn’t have it.

40
Warren, Karren J., p.129.

82
(A3) Humans are morally superior to plants and rocks.

(A4) For any X and Y, if X is morally superior to Y, then X is morally justified in

subordinating Y.

(A5) Humans are morally justified in subordinating plants and rocks.

(AI) speaks about the distinctive power of humans. The distinctive power of humans

is reason or intelligent which non-humans lack. As a result of that, humans unlike

other non-humans can make their own rational decisions on the basis of this capacity.

We think the objective of environmental ethics in general and eco-philosophy in

particular is not to highlight the distinctive power of a particular species or

community, rather to bank on the coherence relationship with each other. If the

distinctive property of a community or species is the hallmark of domination then

every species, biotic or abiotic, possesses some unique distinctive power on the basis

of which it can dominate the other species. A man has unique distinctive power which

a non-human does not have. A pigeon has a peculiar distinctive power that is not

possessed by a man. A species can identify on the basis of distinctive power or

capacity that is his or her own. However, when we speak of eco-philosophy under the

womb of environmental ethics, our cause of concern is to develop a mutual coherence

among all natural communities. Therefore, in our sense, (AI) cannot be accepted as

tenable. (A2) is logically follows from (AI). If (AI) is accepted as valid, (A2) is

accepted as valid too. On the contrary, if (AI) is accepted as invalid, (A2) would

equally be treated as invalid. (A2) states that on the basis of distinctive capacity, the

value dualism in morality is determined. But this is not true. Eco-philosophy under

the womb of environmental ethics, states that all biotic and a biotic community are

equal in the sense that all possess equal value. Environmental ethics denies or ignores

83
any sort of value dualism arising out of distinctive capacity. In this regard,

environmental ethics differs from traditional or classical ethics. In classical ethics,

humans are superior to other non-humans because humans can evaluate or judge what

is good or not good; what is right or not right; what one ought to do or not ought to

do. Thus, in one sense traditional or classical ethics is anthropocentric. It gives moral

priority only to humans. Eco-philosophy thinks the other way round. It asserts that all

natural communities are equal as each of them contributes knowingly or unknowingly

for the betterment of environment.

(A3) to (A5) hold good if (AI) and (A2) hold good. (A3) states that humans are

morally superior to non-humans, namely, rocks and plants. This proposition cannot be

accepted without accepting the earlier ones. (A4) generalizes the previous assertion to

all abiotic natural communities. It justifies on the basis of logical cannon. (A5) is the

conclusion of the previous assertion drawing from (A1) to (A4). We think the

ingenuity of the argument offered by Warren is based on (A1). In our sense (A1) is

not conclusive because it is directed to a particular community and detached from

other large communities. When we talk of ethics and morality, our concern would not

be subjective but objective. Objectivity is the hallmark of philosophy in general and

ethics and morality in particular. We cannot assert that just on the basis of distinctive

property a natural community should be treated as morally superior to others.

Anyway, what is shown by the logic of domination argument as cited above, is the

view that humans are morally superior to trees and rocks, i.e., abiotic natural

communities. Thus, it is concluded that humans are morally superior to the ecological

community or in short ecology. Ecofeminism is the twin concept of both ‘ecology’

and ‘feminism’. Its main contention is that they are entwined with each other and

84
exploitation and subjugation of one is at par with exploitation and subjugation of

other. Accordingly, the logic of argument can further be extended like the following: 41

(BI) Women are identified with nature and the realm of the physical; men are

identified with the human and the realm of the mental.

(B2) Whatever is identified with nature and the realm of the physical is inferior to

(below) whatever is identified with the “human” and the realm of the mental.

(B3) Thus, women are inferior to men.

(B4) For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, then X is justified in subordinating Y.

(B5) Men are justified in subordinating women.

The above argument is structurally the same as the earlier one. This sort of argument

based on the logic of domination is prevails everywhere in the anthropocentric

environment. It has been observed that the domination of nature by humans and the

sexual domination of women by men rely on the same general framework.

Accordingly, it can be assumed that the devaluation of women depends upon the prior

devaluation of nature. Thus, in a sense, the exploitation of women on the basis of

sexism and the exploitation of nature are conceptually linked. According to Warren,

this insight tells us that environmentalists and feminists should be allies and makes

explicit what it is we must work against. It in fact represents a very important eco-

feminist contribution to both movements. If one accepts conceptual links between the

domination of nature and the domination of women, it follows that a movement that is

not feminist will yield at best a superficial understanding of the domination of nature.

Thus, to save or to protect the natural environmental would be the priority of us, we

41
Ibid., p.130.

85
must be working together to over through patriarchy and value dualism arising out of

distinctive quality or capacity. We think that at conceptual level these fights are one

and the same. According to Warren, the logic of domination motivates not only

sexism and naturalism, but racism and other ‘isms’ as well. All of these ‘isms’, we

reckon, are conceptually linked with each other and extremely harmful to mankind in

general. Thus, eco-philosophy is vocal in resisting any sort of dualism that would

incur ups and downs, inferior and superior complex in the true sense of the term.

Eco-feminist Discussion of Animals

The debate has been further extended to include animals as well. Feminist theory

addresses links between the domination of animals and the domination of people of

color and white women. In “Am I Blue?, Alice Walker presents a moving analysis of

the similarities between racism and the mistreatment of animals. Here, Alice Walker

compares the way in which children are encouraged to forget that humans can have

deep and meaningful communication with animals to the ways that white children

raised by ‘mammies’ were encouraged to forget that their first all accepting love come

from black women. She also compares the use of animals for breeding without regard

for their feelings to the way slaves were used for breeding purposes. It should be

noted that even though animals are not a cause of concern to eco-feminists, but still it

may be claimed that there has been a clear commitment to animals evident in eco-

feminist literature. In addition we can say that vegetarianism can be seen as an

important component of eco-feminist praxis. Even Adams argues that concern for

animals is part of the ecological feminist project not only because acknowledging

their value is part of dismantling the logic of domination, but also because the

domination of the earth more generally is part of animal agriculture. For Adams, the

domination of animals is very similar to the domination of black women and that is

86
why Adams makes a link between these two. Adams says, “Both women workers and

the chickens themselves are the means to the end of consumption, but because

consumption has been disembodied, their oppressions as worker and consumable

body are invisible.”42

Thus, the main objective and strategy of looking for connections between various

types of oppression, domination, and exploitation is clear and vivid in other eco-

feminist discussions of animals. It has been revealed time and again that chicken

processing includes the cruel treatment of chickens, discusses how 33% of the Perdue

workers hired to slaughter chickens end up with a crippling condition of the hands and

wrists caused by having to slaughter up to 75 chickens per minute, and more

importantly, the huge majority of these workers are women of color. She also writes

how the dairy industry mistreats cows, and also mentions farms as sites of human

oppression. Adams further uses the ecological feminist critique of dualistic thinking to

argue against the current split between maintenance and production. This split in turn

allows people to maintain diets based on animal flesh without thinking about the

ethically problematic aspect of meat production. An ethic that linked maintenance

with production would identify not only the exploitation of animals and workers as

part of the costs of mean production, but would count the loss of topsoil, water, and

the demands of fossil fuels that meat production requires. For Adams, all meat eating

is morally problematic while other environmentalists adhere to the view that in certain

contexts meat-eating may be acceptable, while in others it is not.

42
Adams, 1991, p.131.

87
Ecofeminism and Environmental Racism

The web of ecofeminism is further extended to environmental racism. The strategy of

looking for connections between oppressions is also evident in eco-feminist

discussions of environmental racism. Two-thirds of all Blacks and Latinos in the

United States actually reside in areas with one or more unregulated toxic-waste site

and race is the most significant factor which differentiates between communities with

such sites and communities without them. According to Cuomo, ecological feminist

analysis is helpful in raising questions, such as, how ethical, economic, and aesthetic

discourses justify racist, toxic politics, how disempowerment and alienation make it

particularly difficult for communities to fight back, how racist conceptions of people

and cities as unclean and hopeless justify mistreatment, and how is male dominated

contexts women may be disproportionately affected by toxins. Further ecological

feminism reminds us that toxic dumping is not only a problem concerning human

well-being, but it hugely affects non-humans as well.

Eco-feminist Problem with Development

Ecofeminism is extremely vocal against industrial development or rapid scientific

development which makes adverse impact both nature and women at large. There is

no question of doubt that development goes against natural diversity. It distorts and

disturbs the natural balance in manifold of ways. The negative impact equally

degrades women. In rural village, women at large maintain household matters. They

bring wood from forest for cooking and collect drinking water from the local

resources. Now if industrial development is taking place in rural areas, then it will not

only impact the balance of the natural environment, it will increase the hardship of the

women as well. Thus, ecological feminist clearly demonstrated how first-world

88
development of third-world countries imports problematic and troublesome

patriarchal ideas causing innumerable social problems for women in the countries that

are being ‘developed’. In this regard, we can mention the name of Vandana Shiva.

Vandana Shiva in her book Staying Alive asserts how the so-called development she

termed as ‘male development’ has been highly problematic for those who have been

developed. According to Shiva, both sexes are affected by development, but it is very

often the large number of women who have the most to lose. Shiva’s book appears as

a theoretical analysis of the development process with special reference to India.

According to Shiva, western development was supposed to be a postcolonial project

giving underdeveloped countries the chance to accept the western model of progress.

But this proposal was offered without having to undergo the subjugation and

exploitation involved in being colonized. It assumed that western-style progress was

possible and desirable for all. However Shiva thinks the other way round. According

to her, western-style progress and the economic model that it involves, creates poverty

as it creates wealth and this is endemic to western model of progress.

Thus, Shiva, being an eco-feminist, finds problem with western model of

development. She thinks that this kind of development actually destroys sustainable

lifestyles and thereby creates material poverty for those who are developed. This may

be said as the proposal of development with the proviso of developmental

colonialism. According to Shiva, resources needed for the purpose of sustenance are

diverted for use in the production of cash crops and other commodities to be sold on

the market. This in turn robs those who suffer development of the resources they had

been using to survive. In this context, Shiva distinguishes between two types of

poverty, such as, culturally perceived poverty and real material poverty. According to

the western model, people living in sustenance economics are seen as poor because

89
they do not produce surplus to be bought and sold on the global market. They might

indeed have their survival needs met and the quality of their lives can even be better

than those living according to the western model of progress. However, by the

standards of western development, these people are poor by definition. One of Shiva’s

central points is that attempt to remove culturally perceived poverty after create real

material poverty, the absence of things needed for survival. The quality of life of

those who are ‘developed’ is often higher before’ male development’ occurs. Shiva

refers to the western model as western patriarchy. Following Merchant and others,

Shiva argues that the devaluation of women and nature typical in western-style

patriarchy is imported in development projects. While men and women are negatively

affected by development projects, the patriarchal nature of the values which are part

of the western model means development is often worse for women than it is for men.

Women’s knowledge is discredited as unscientific, useless, and perhaps even

dangerous and real knowledge, mainly controlled by men is said to be the only true

knowledge. As a result of that in the ages of new scientific methods, women as the

primary products of food, water, and fuel, are displaced and their practices are

undermined. As new methods paid little or no attention to nature’s cycles, and to the

ways that natural processes are interconnected, the results are often unsustainable.

A large number of ecological feminists argue that in order solve the ‘ecological crisis’

we need to celebrate values which have been devalued in western patriarchal contexts.

Hence, there have been calls to celebrate such things as ‘femininity’ and ‘feminine

values’ within the literature. According to Ariel Kay Salleh, we do not need abstract

ethical constructs to create a consciousness of our connection with the rest of nature.

We need to recognize the value of women’s experience, something which patriarchal

societies fail to do. According to Brian Swimme, there is some truth to the idea that

90
the earth is a birthing process, but this truth can only be seen effortlessly intuited by

woman. If women’s lived experiences were recognized as meaningful and were given

legitimation in our culture, it would provide an immediate ‘living’ social basis for an

alternative consciousness which the deep ecologist is trying to formulate and

introduce as an abstract ethical construct. Women already flow with the system of

nature. Swimme seems unsure whether this epistemic privilege is the result of

biology, socialization, or both. He refers both to Starhawk’s life as a woman, and to

the fact that she is a being who can give birth. Vandana Shiva also accepts an

uncritical standpoint epistemology. Of course, the voices of those suffering must be

central to any ecological feminist ethic. Warren and Plumwood make this point as

well. Having said this, we need to be careful about saying that suffering oppression

makes one a source for healing the diseased mainstream. It is a key feminist position

that oppression is wrong and the reason for its wrong is that it is damaging to those

who suffer it. Even though it would be the case that the voices and experiences of the

oppressed will be central to any liberation movement, uncritical glorification is

dangerous. It fails to acknowledge the complexity of oppression. Thus, in a sense,

questions of the merits of standpoint epistemology are central to the development of

ecological feminism. While mentioning sexism and dowry system, Shiva argues that

development caused women’s work to be seen as less valuable. Development may

have made women’s situation worse. Development within patriarchy environment is

damaging to women because it devalued women’s value from the outset.

A pertinent question is whether ecological feminists tend to refer to ‘woman’ and

‘nature’ as having essential qualities. Thus, one of the most common criticisms of

ecological feminism arises from the charge of essentialism. The basic criticism is that

ecological feminists tend to refer to woman and nature as having essential qualities

91
which are supposed to be metaphysically real. It is assumed that individual women of

different racial, class and cultural identities fit into the category un-problematically,

and therefore, they share some essential attribute. The category ‘nature’ is also dealt

with as if it is static, real, metaphysically given and unproblematic. Thus, it seems

clear that many ecological feminist positions seem to use essentialist notions of

‘woman’ and ‘nature’ Some critics, such as, Janet Biehl, dismiss ecological feminism

altogether because of such charges. However, many would say that this is unfortunate

for several reasons. First, it simply is not the case that all ecological feminist positions

are guilty of essentialism and secondly, even if there is some basis to the charges of

essentialism, still we can learn more by examining in greater depth what is wrong

with such positions rather than refusing to engage with them altogether.

According to Warren, ecological feminists agree that women are identified with

nature and that whatever is identified with nature is seen as inferior to whatever is

identified with the human in western patriarchal contexts. However, Warren correctly

points out that ecological feminists differ with respect to the truth of the identification

of women and nature. Many ecological feminists are anxious to deny any historical

identification of women with nature. They deny the claim that women are identified

with nature as anything more than a historical claim about assumptions within

patriarchal culture. Moreover, by claiming that women are closer to nature, this

establishes women’s immutable essence. It is more often a claim about their

socialization within patriarchy. Some anti-essentialist critics seem to think merely

referring to the categories of ‘woman’ and ‘nature’ is problematic because for them

nothing fits into these categories un-problematically. If this were to be the case, then

surely ecological feminism would indeed be a dead end. In such a case one cannot

examine links between oppressions of women and nature if one cannot even refer to

92
these categories. However, Cuomo argues that simply ceasing to refer to the

categories of ‘woman’ and ‘nature’ is not the correct remedy for false generalization

and essentialism.

Ecofeminism vs. Mainstream Approaches

Ecofeminism would certainly stand against mainstream approaches. Mainstream

approaches to environmental philosophy can be divided into two basic categories,

those that argue for environmental protection based on the instrumental value of the

environment and those that seek to extend intrinsic moral value to at least some non-

human entities. Environmentalists are arguing for environmental protection based on

its instrumental value to human beings. For them instrumental value is needed for

human flourishing. However, ecological feminists criticize these approaches. An

example of an influential mainstream approach attempting to extend moral

consideration to non-human animals is offered by Peter Singer. Singer argues that

certain non-human animals should be accorded moral value using a utilitarian

approach. The theory developed by Singer is characterized as extensionist, attempting

to extend traditional ethical theories to non-human beings. Ecological feminists

equally criticize extensionist type theories on the grounds that these theories fail to

question liberal conceptions of the human self as fundamentally an atomistic

individual whose personal experiences and freedom are the key ethical considerations.

Liberal conceptions of the self starts with the idea that atomistic human individuals

are the paradigm example of beings with moral value and then argue that at least

some animals possess the qualities which account for individual human moral value.

While ecological feminists argue for the extension of moral value to include non-

humans, ecological feminists insist that an adequate environmental ethic must include

93
a recognition of what it means to be a human being, and a definition of what criteria

are necessary for the recognition of moral value to begin.

Ecofeminism and the Value of Nature

So far we have observed that ecofeminism is an environmental issue where

domination and exploitation of women can be equated at par with the domination and

exploitation of nature. Ecofeminism not only finds out the parity of domination

between women and nature, it also explores various ways and means through which

such types of domination can be regarded as morally unjust and unendurable. The

objective of ecofeminism is to restore the dignity of nature in a moral context. Thus,

in a sense, there is nothing wrong in assuming that ecofeminism is largely about

ethics. Environmental ethics gives moral judgment regarding the technological actions

which are directly or indirectly directed towards the extinction of natural species.

Mainstream ethics encourages the advance of technology which is fallacious and

dangerous in the eyes of environmental ethics. Environmental ethics seeks to restore

equal moral status to all biotic as well as abiotic communities. It speaks in favor of the

annihilation of value dualism. It does not think that only humans have intrinsic value

and other than humans do not have intrinsic value. The leading proponents of

environmental philosophy proposed a liberal notion of progress by incorporating all

biotic communities within the realm of environmental ethics.

Environmental ethics advocates for a non-instrumentalist conception of nature. Eco-

feminists point out the unjustifiability of typical human centered judgment and values

including most notably those based on traditional ethics developed by Kant, Mill,

Aristotle etc. Traditional or classical ethics is human centered and it always tries to

usurp our ideas about nature. Just by attributing the value of nature, ecofeminism

94
thereby denies speciesism. Speciesism adheres to the view that one species is superior

to other from a moral point of view. Only humans have moral value. But eco-

feminists include all forms of nature in the universe as equal from a moral

perspective. Ecofeminism at any point does not consider nature as something out

there because it ignores a crucial question at the heart of ecological feminism.

Ecofeminism therefore acknowledges models for clarifying ethics and ethical matters.

Ecofeminism equally challenges the anthropocentric value known as instrumental

value. Instrumental value is revealed ‘as a means to an end’ but ecofeminism

recognized that nature has intrinsic value and such value is recognized as an end in

itself. William Cronon, a noted historian, recently remarked, “Nature is not merely so

natural as it seems. Instead, it is profoundly human construction. This is not to say

that the nonhuman world is somehow unreal or a mere figment of our imagination far

from it. But the way we describe and understand that world is so entangled with our

own values and assumptions that the two can never be fully separated. What we mean

when we use the word nature says as much about ourselves as about the things we

level with world.”43 Our point is that ecofeminism strongly argues for restoring the

dignity and value of nature not by introducing anthropocentrism but by employing

non-anthropocentrism in which any ethical form of dualism among biotic community

is ruled out. Many would say that the proper criterion to define moral value is to try to

evoke a feeling, to draw attention to what we take to be valuable. In this regard, one

may recall Hume who very similar to eco-feminists ethics does not accept any fixed

understanding of nature. What then is the locus of moral value? Those who adhere to

the view that moral value must begin with human value would lead to the extrinsic

nature of value and those who propose that the locus of moral value actually hinges

43
Cronon, William (ed) Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, W. W. Norton
and Company, 1995, p.25.

95
on restoring and respecting women and nature would lead us to intrinsic nature of

value. In the case of extrinsic value, the locus of value depends on human values

expressed in terms of right and wrong, good and bad. Here we need valuers. Some

moral agent must value it as a member of the ethical realm. It is a kind of value that

humans can appreciate and respect and it must be capable of having interests or doing

well. The intrinsic sense of value is the value of nature. Although values primarily

come from humans but there is no point in saying that humans are the creators of

values. Values need not be human creations. Intrinsic value, we claim, is non-

anthropocentric in nature because it can be comprehended without the valuers.

Although the issue is highly debatable as many philosophers have expressed

reservation about the possibility of intrinsic values without the valuers. Having said

this, there are a few environmentalists who adhere to the view that intrinsic value is

possible without the valuers. We do not enter into this debate. As nature is the locus

of intrinsic value and intrinsic value is one that can be comprehended as an end in

itself, we think that it can be accepted or comprehended as an end in itself without the

valuers. This brings back the relevance of environmental ethics. We think the remark

of Callicott is particularly relevant here. Callicott says, “Our special affections are

extended to our fellow members and to the social whole of which we are part. The

intrinsic value we attribute to individual human beings and to humanity express only

our feelings for co-members of our global village and for our human

community.”44This clearly suggests that the value of nature in eco-feminists

perspectives actually deserves ethical motivation. Here, ethical motivation is based on

social affections felt and extended towards members of our own species with whom

we share feelings, commonality, kinship and understanding. The objective of

44
Callicot, J. B., “On the Intrinsic Value of Non-human Species”, in G. B. Norton (ed) Preservation of
Species: The Value of Biological Diversity, Princeton University Press, 1986, p.65.

96
ecofeminism actually hinges on the feelings of a special attachment to humans and

nature, i.e., in short on the whole biotic community. Even Paul Taylor once remarked

that nature is worthy of moral consideration because it’s individual living members

have inherent worth. Each strives towards good when it has the freedom to and that

good ought to be valued and respected for its own sake. Ecological feminists hold that

the starting point of moral consideration is nothing short of the condition of being

alive. This is justifies that life requires death and many of us think of an achievably

good human life requires quite a bit of death and destruction. Ecofeminism thus

begins with a perception of human-being which directly follows from normative

implication of feminism which desires to promote the flourishing of women and

others. Thus, the flourishing of women as well as nature is the objective of

ecofeminism. The most significant philosophical commitment of ecofeminism is to

address in what sense women as well as nature can be perceived as moral agents. It

further tries to show in what sense women along with non-humans beings have moral

value. In this regard, feminist ethics appears to be ecological feminism. Ecofeminism

tries to develop a form of moral community where both biotic and abiotic

communities are its members. Thus in one sense feminist ethics is a source of wisdom

for ecological feminism. Ecofeminism involves values of nature through careful,

consistent, methodologically sound inquiries that would be interested to the well-

being of women and nature. It asserts that women and nature have full moral value as

they are the legitimate moral agents and objects. As a result of that it has rebelled

against the propensity to undervalue both women and nature. According to Vandana

Shiva, nature, like women, is a living organism. One simply has to realize it.

Ecofeminism tries to correlate women and nature and thereby tries to restore the value

of nature.

97
Ecofeminism identifies a variety of approaches that also see a connection between

social domination and the domination of nature. Since its introduction in 1974 first by

Francoise d’Eduborne, ecofeminism has generated a significant amount of interesting

writing and research. According to Warren, ecofeminism or ecological feminism “is

the position that there are important connections-historical, experimental, symbolic,

theoretical-between the domination of women and the domination of nature, an

understanding of which is crucial to both feminism and environmental

ethics.”45Ecofeminism is deeply engaged in exploring the connections between the

feminist and ecological movements. Feminists offer a wide diversity of viewpoints

concerning the nature and analysis of women’s oppression. They also have diverse

views concerning the connections between the domination of women and the

domination of nature. We have already outlined the nature and logic of domination as

elucidated by Warren. This logic of domination is a pattern of thinking in which two

groups, men and nature, are distinguished in terms of some characteristics, such as,

for example, men are rational and women are emotional. Here a value hierarchy is

attributed to these characteristics. One framework for organizing feminist thinking

that has influenced many Eco-feminists was developed by philosopher Alison Jaggar.

Jaggar distinguishes various forms of feminism, such as, Marxist, radical, liberal and

socialist forms of feminism. Each offers an account of the oppression of women and

an alternative social philosophy. Liberal feminists, for example, deny that any

relevant difference between men and women exists. They argue that all humans

possess the same nature as free and rational beings and that any unequal treatment of

women would deny this moral equality and would therefore be unjust. Thus, liberal

feminists devote much of their energy to locating discrimination and fighting for

45
Warren, Karen J., “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”, Environmental Ethics, 12,
(Summer 1990), p.126.

98
equal rights and equal opportunity. Marxist feminists argue that women in general are

oppressed because they are demoted to domestic, and therefore dependent forms of

labor. They argue that the Lockean theory of private property rights makes sense only

within a context in which women’s labor is ignored. A necessary precondition for a

‘man’ to ‘mix his labor’ with some unowned land is that there exist women who are

performing full-time domestic labor, allowing the man the free time necessary to

accumulate land. Domestic labor did not give women property rights of ownership

over the home. Only by becoming full participants in independent and productive

forms of labor do women become liberated from economic and political exploitation.

Socialist feminists reject the strict class analysis offered by Marxists and claim that a

complex web of social relationship underlies the oppression of women. These

relationships include both economic factors and traditional patterns of gender roles

and identities. Radical feminists believe that biological and sexual differences

between men and women have been made the basis of women’s oppression. This type

of feminism is radical in the sense that it denies that women’s oppression can be

reduced to some other more basic form of oppression. Women have been culturally

defined in terms of their biology. This biological difference has been used to justify a

wide-ranging gender system that ensures that women remain dominated by men. As

the roles of women are associated with childbearing, child raising and human

sexuality, women have been characterized as more controlled by their bodies, more

passive, and more emotional than men. Given the logic of domination it may be

decided that men, by being more reasonable and active than women, ought to be in

position of authority over women. Looking to overcome the oppression of women,

some radical feminists conclude that women can escape oppression only when

traditional gender roles are abolished. They further argue that women should strive for

99
a ‘unisex’ whereas others advocate for separatism between women and men. Instead

of denying biological, sexual and gender differences between men and women, these

feminists seek to encourage and celebrate the female. We think that a significant

amount of work on ecological issues has come from this branch of radical feminism.

Radical feminism has been alternatively designated as cultural ecofeminism. It

accepts the view that there exists authentic and particular women’s ways of

experiencing, understanding, and valuing the world. Cultural ecofeminism holds that

women’s perspectives historically have been and remain closely identified with nature

and that women, like nature, have been systematically oppressed in the process.

Instead of denying the link between women and nature, cultural eco-feminists aim “ to

remedy ecological and other problems through the creation of an alternative

‘women’s culture’ … based on revaluing, celebrating and defending what patriarchy

has devalued, including the feminine, non-human nature, the body and the

emotions.”46 We think that the connections between alternative women’s cultures and

ecological concerns have been explored in a number of ways. Here we will briefly

consider two: an ecological ethics based on care and relationships, and women’s

spirituality movement. The domestic roles of women as mothers and wives meant that

those values important to women-caring, relationships, love, and responsibility-

remain outside of mainstream ethical theorizing. In recent decades some feminists

have brought many of the values traditionally associated with women’s role, which

we shall summarize as an ‘ethics of care’ into the forefront of ethical theorizing.

Drawing on the work of Gilligian, NelNoddings, Sara Ruddick, and others, these

feminists seek to articulate and defend a perspective that deemphasizes abstract rules

and principles in favor of a contextual ethics focusing on caring and relationship.

46
Plumber, “Current Trends in Ecofeminism”, p.10.

100
Traditional ethical concepts, such as, moral laws, rights, duties, obligations, and

justice presupposes a world in which interests conflicts, in which the commands of

justice restrict and limit human freedom, in which morality battles egoism. An ethics

of care begins with a moral universe in which cooperation replaces conflict,

relationships replace confrontation, and caring for the other replaces rights and duties.

It is a moral universe in which mothering and friendship serve as moral ideals rather

than abstract principles like individual autonomy and freedom from interference.

Feminists, of course, offer different interpretations for why an ethics of care is

particularly a women’s perspective. In general feminists understand an ethics of care

as more compatible with the life experiences of women. The vocabulary of rights and

duties, autonomy and justice, rules and laws is highly artificial and inappropriate

within the context of a mother child relationship. Some cultural eco-feminists build on

these observations concerning an ethics of care. These thinkers acknowledge that

women historically have been portrayed as closer to nature than man. But rather than

criticizing this portrayal as the basis for much of the violence done to women, some

eco-feminists build on this identification as a basis for a benevolent relationship

between women and nature. From this perspective, the ethics of care covers human-

nature relationships as appropriately as it covers mother-child relationships. Women,

who are taught to experience this caring more directly and more immediately than

men, are the more appropriate voices for nature’s interests. Besides care ethics,

women’s spirituality movement is a second area in which cultural eco-feminists have

explored a bond between women and nature. Mainstream western religion considered

God as outside of or transcended, formed, and breathed life into the dust. In much of

this tradition, women again are associated with nature because they are so dependent

on their bodies and are so passive. Thus, organized religion often sees women as

101
lacking the special spirituality that would qualify them as priests, rabbis, ministers,

popes, and so on. Thus, within much of this mainstream we again can witness the dual

defamation of women and nature. Having said this, many cultural eco-feminists seek a

spiritualism or theology that reverses these trends. Instead we should observe and

honor the identification of women, nature and the divine. Ancient religions conceived

that God was identified both as the earth itself and as a woman. Some cultural eco-

feminists honor a spirituality that views the Goddess as immanent in nature and views

the natural world as revealing the divine. Thus, the earth itself is worshiped as divine

and caring for or loving the earth is a spiritual as well as ecological responsibility.

Celebrating Mother Nature or the Greek goddess Gaia, for example, becomes the way

for women’s spirituality to rejoice in the sacredness of women and nature.

Recent Developments of Ecofeminism

Besides the earlier developments of ecofeminism, there we notice considerable

developments of ecofeminism in recent past which deviate in some sense or other

from the earlier developments. Despite the earlier developments, many feminists are

reluctant to accept the strategy of those who embrace the view that distinctive and

separate ‘women’s ways’ of understanding, experiencing and valuing the world really

exist. They, however, fear that by accepting the dualism implicit in viewing women as

‘closer to nature’ than man, these feminists only reinforce the way of thinking that

underlies hierarchies and the logic of domination. Philosopher Val Plumwood calls

this ‘the feminism of uncritical reversal’ and sees it as ‘perpetuating women’s

oppression in a new and subtle form.’47 In this context, Ynestra King suggests that an

‘unwitting complicity’ in a patriarchal mind-set underlies the cultural-nature split that

this view assumes. However, in place of cultural ecofeminism, Plumwood and Warren

47
Plumwood, “Feminism and Ecofeminism”, p.12.

102
seek a ‘third wave’ of feminism that ‘ is an integrative and transformative feminism or

that moves us beyond the current debate over the four leading versions of feminism

and makes a responsible ecological perspective central to feminist theory and practice.

To introduce this third wave of ecofeminism, it would be helpful to follow

Plumwood’s review of the first two waves. The first wave of feminism known as

liberal feminism seeks to end discrimination and attain equality for women. The

problem with this view is that in a culture in which masculine traits and characteristics

dominate equality for women amounts to little more than requiring women to adopt

these dominant male traits. In effect, women can be equal to men only if they become

masculine. Here women always fall just a little short of full equality. The ecological

implications of the first wave can be distressing. Women can liberate themselves from

an oppressive identification with nature only if they, like men, become oppression of

nature.

The second wave of feminism is represented by the ‘uncritical reversal’ of some

feminists. It promotes and celebrates a distinctive female point of view. The third

wave seeks an alternative to both liberal and radical versions of feminism. It sees the

domination of nature and the domination of women are inextricably connected. Here

women have been identified as closer to nature and nature has been identified as

feminine. These identifications have mutually reinforced the oppression of each.

Thus, in a sense environmental philosophy and feminism need to develop in unison

where each is recognizing parallel interests. Both Warren and Plumwood are of the

opinion that at the most general level, both feminism and ecological movement need

to address a cluster of dualism and dualistic ways of thinking under the logic of

domination. This type of ecofeminism challenges both feminists and

environmentalists alike to uncover the patterns of domination common to the

103
oppression of women and nature. It thus begins with exploring alternative and non-

dualistic ways of thinking about both human and non-human nature. This type of

ecofeminism is also similar to Bookchin’s more general analysis of hierarchies and

domination. It is further stated that some of these dualistic ways of thinking that are

specially relevant to ecofeminism involve the split between masculine and feminine,

human and nature, reason and emotion, mind and body, and objectivity as well as

subjectivity. Each dualism typically gets used within our culture in contexts that

support domination: masculine over feminine, human over nature, reason over

emotion, mind over body and objectivity over subjectivity. The goal of ecofeminism

is to weed out dualisms and develop alternative patterns of thinking. Ecofeminism

concerns itself more with science, technology, and a scientific understanding of

nature. A number of feminist scholars have chronicled the many ways that culture has

identified women with nature. Science has typically been identified with the dominant

part of these dualisms, masculine, human, rational, mental, and objective. In this

regard we can refer to the feminist scientist Evelyn Fox Keller who has outlined the

ways in which a particular way of understanding nature, women and even marriage

has also helped shape the early development of western science. 48In this regard one

can turn to Keller. In fact Keller quotes the early scientist Francis Bacon to show how

many of the models and metaphors of early science displayed an aggressive attitude

towards both women and nature. According to Bacon, science seeks to establish a

chaste and lawful marriage between Mind and Nature. Science and technology do not

‘merely exert a gentle guidance over nature’s course; they have the power to conquer

and subdue her, to shake her to the foundations’. Bacon’s images are very precise and

clear. Nature is a woman, and she is to become married to man who will subdue her

48
See Keller’s “Spirit and Reason at the Birth of Modern Science.” Ch.3 in Reflections.

104
and turn her into a slave. Bacon associates nature not only with women and marriage

but with a particularly dominating and abusive type of marriage.

Many would say that scientific and technological development is responsible for all

sorts of dualisms stated above and one should not forget it. Science and technology

sees natural value as use or instrumental value and it forgoes or seldom recognizes the

intrinsic value of nature. Keller describes an approach to science that exhibits this

‘feeling for the organism’, an approach that is very often called and then dismissed as

‘a woman’s way of thinking’. Keller, however, does not suggest that mainstream

science be abandoned in favor of this more particularized approach to knowledge but

that science, done only from the controlling and dominant perspective, will likely

miss much that is important. A second direction for further environmental thinking

encouraged by this type of ecofeminism develops from a much more modest

conception of human action, ethics and understanding. This third wave of

ecofeminism encourages thinking that is contextualist, pluralistic, inclusive and

holistic. It is contextualist in the sense that it seeks to avoid abstract and universal

ethical pronouncements. This process of abstraction can prevent us from recognizing

the rich diversity within both human and non-human nature. It has simply taken

characteristics of the dominant group and turned them into ethical and philosophical

ideals. It can thus reinforce the oppression of women, animals, and the rest of the

natural world.

The third wave of ecofeminism is pluralistic and inclusive in the sense that it respects

diversity and differences. The key aspect of a dominating ideology is the belief that

there is only one right way of being, thinking, and acting. A philosophy that self-

consciously avoids hierarchies and domination will celebrate diversity and resist

attempts to establish one ‘correct’ environmental theory. Finally, this ecofeminism is

105
holistic in the sense that it assists and encourages us to understand human beings as

essentially a part of their human and natural communities. This ecofeminism rejects

the view that humans are abstract individuals, fully constituted by their private

consciousness, thoughts and choices. Thus, in an absolute sense humans are created

by and are an inextricable part of their social and natural environments. Thus,

ecofeminism as such advocates a radical shift in the ways in which the major and

dominant sectors of the contemporary world think about and understand the

relationship between humans and the rest of the natural world. We think that both

social ecology and ecofeminism are more specific about the roots of environmental

and ecological devastation. In fact, the domination of the natural world is part of more

general patterns of domination and control. Therefore, until all patterns of

dominations are eliminated, we can expect little real progress to be made on the

environmental front. Having said this, ecofeminism actually faces serious challenges.

How exactly are we to understand the connections between human domination of

other humans and the human domination of nonhuman nature? Has one really caused

the other? Are they mutually reinforcing? Should one have ethical priority? Are they

simply parallel developments with little direct connection? What are the ethical and

philosophically preferable strategies of resisting these forms of domination? What

exactly are the connections between the domination of women and other forms of

social domination? Is ecofeminism a branch of social ecology? These and many more

questions are relevant when examining the concept of ecofeminism. Ecofeminism

especially resists attempts to construct a unified and overarching environmental

philosophy. Accordingly, we need to be careful about this when raising challenges to

these views. Many of these challenges seek the type of universal and abstract answers

that eco-feminists identify as part of the problem. Having said this, ecofeminism has

106
already made significant contributions to environmental ethics and environmental

philosophy.

***

107