Victoria Davion, Professor of Philosophy, University of Georgia, ECOLOGICAL
FEMINISM, Karen Warren, ed., 1994, p.26.
However, while ecofeminists are correct in challenging dualisms such as
human/nature, reason/emotion, and masculinity/femininity, the solution does not
lie in simply valuing the side of the dichotomy that has been devalued in
Western patriarchal frameworks. Rather, traits associated with both sides of
these false dichotomies need to be reconceived and reconsidered; if these
traits are to be retained, totally new ways of thinking about them in a
nonpatriarchal context are needed. Simply beginning to value the devalued side
reinforces the harmful dichotomies ecofeminism must overcome.
ECOFEMINISM IS INCOHERENTLY ECLECTIC
Janet Biehl, social ecologist, RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS, 1991, p.3.
Ecofeminism, far from being healthily diverse, is so blatantly
self-contradictory as to be incoherent. As one might expect, at least one
ecofeminist even rejects the very notion of coherence itself, arguing that
coherence is "totalizing" and by inference oppressive. Moreover, because
ecofeminists rarely debate each other, it is nearly impossible to glean from
their writings the extent to which they agree or disagree with each other. The
reader of this book should be wary of attributing the views of any one
ecofeminist, as they are presented here, to all other ecofeminists. But
ecofeminists' apparent aversion to sorting out the differences among themselves
leaves the critical observer no choice but to generalize.
ECOFEMINISM IS IRRATIONALIST
Janet Biehl, social ecologist, RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS, 1991, p.2.
Ecofeminism has also become a force for irrationalism, most obviously in its
embrace of goddess worship, its glorification of the early Neolithic, and its
emphasis on metaphors and myths. It has also become irrational in another
sense: that is, by virtue of its own incoherence.
THERE'S NO COHERENT BODY OF ECOFEMINIST THOUGHT
Janet Biehl, social ecologist, RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS, 1991, p.2-3.
But apart from these basic themes, the short essays anthologized in these books
often blatantly contradict each other. Some of the recent essays argue, for
example, that there is an innate, even biological "connection" between women
and nature, while others avow that this "connection" is really a socially
constructed product. Some advocate a belief in a goddess, while others are
adamantly secular. Some locate the roots of the ecological crisis in the late
Neolithic in Europe, while others locate those roots in Christianity, and still
others in the Scientific Revolution. Some assert that "All is One," while
others argue for particularism and multiplicity. Some are influenced by social
ecology, while others have ties with deep ecology. Some regard ecofeminism as a
liberatory concept of nearly unprecedented proportions, while others - even in
articles in these anthologies themselves - reject the name "ecofeminism"
altogether as insulting to feminist activists. Although most political
movements might feel the need to sort out these differences and their theorists
might argue for and against them, producing a healthy debate, ecofeminists
rarely confront each other on the differences in these writings.
ECOFEMINISM OBSCURES THE RELATIONSHIP OF WOMEN AND NATURE
Janet Biehl, social ecologist, RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS, 1991, p.19.
Ironically, the shift to social constructionism has somewhat diminished the
original ecofeminist passion to reclaim "nature" in an organic sense -
certainly when it comes to women's biology. Yet in dissolving "women and
nature" into metaphors or subjective attributes, social-constructionist
ecofeminists obscure both nonhuman nature and women's relationship to it. They
leave undefined the way women, as human beings, gradually evolved out of
nonhuman nature, while remaining part of nature as a whole. One wonders how
many ecofeminists can claim to "speak for" a "nature" that they perceive as
illusory or only through metaphors.
ECOFEMINISM UNDERCUTS THE FEMINIST AGENDA GLOBALLY
Martin Lewis, Professor, Duke University School of the Environment, GREEN
DELUSIONS, 1992, p.36.
In its effort to avoid the appearance of cultural imperialism, radical
eco-feminism also flirts with an ethical relativism that could conceivably
undermine the feminist agenda at the global scale. To posit that '[w]hat counts
as sexism, racism, or classism may vary cross-culturally [K. Warren 1990:139]
is to ignore a huge array of deeply sexist practices existing in numerous
non-Western cultures.
APPEALS TO NATURE HAVE BEEN USED TO SUPPRESS WOMEN
Karen Green, Professor of Philosophy, Monash University, ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS,
Summer 1994, p.127.
It was at least partly in direct response to this reasoning that Wollstonecraft
asserted that it is the faculty of reason which distinguishes human beings from
the brutes and that the perfection of both men and women consists in the
triumph of reason and virtue. Viewed in this way, the second historical
argument rests on a one-sided characterization of the Christian tradition and
masks the fact that, historically, feminists have had good reason to be
suspicious of the valorization of nature, since it is so closely associated
with the valorization of women's natural role and with a justification of their
exclusion from the rights of self-determination.
APPEALS TO NATURE USED TO JUSTIFY SUBORDINATION OF WOMEN
Karen Green, Professor of Philosophy, Monash University, ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS,
Summer 1994, p.126-7.
The problem of the education of the virtuous citizen, therefore, becomes the
problem of discovering a method of allowing the true God-given nature of man to
unfold. This is a method that has to be discovered by reason, but it is a
reason subordinated to the dictates of nature, which, Rousseau believes, can be
discerned in bare outline beneath the actual character of people who have
suffered from centuries of cultural corruption. When applied to women, this
reasoning transforms itself into a classic justification for their
subordination to their husbands within the private sphere of the household.
Since it is in women's nature to bear children, and since, in bearing children,
a woman is at a disadvantage and requires support, nature and reason dictate
that her character and education should mould her to fulfill the role of loving
mother and devoted wife. Thus, in this strand of Western philosophical thought,
far from there being a connection between the subordination of nature and the
subordination of women, it is the valorization of nature. which extends to the
valorization of natural women, that is used to justify the subordination of
women to their husbands and to decry the corrupting influence of those
disordered women who neglect their natural maternal duties in favor of
participation in the world of politics and the arts.
ECOFEMINISM ESSENTIALIZED WOMEN
Karen Warren, Professor of Philosophy, Macalister, ECOLOGICAL FEMINISM, 1994,
p.3.
In her piece, "Is Ecofeminism Feminist?," Victoria Davion offers the
distinction between "ecofeminist" and "ecofeminine" positions and argues that
many of the currently available positions - nearly all ones, it turns out,
offered by nonphilosophers - are properly called "ecofeminine" rather than
"ecofeminist." Davion rejects such positions on a number of grounds, including
their essentializing tendencies to speak of one woman's voice, a woman's way of
knowing, "women's knowledge" or "women's perspective," or to glorify female sex
and gender-identified traits, "the feminine" or "the female" or "the feminine
principle." Through conceptual clarification, Davion argues that a "truly
feminist perspective cannot embrace either the feminine or the masculine
uncritically, as a truly feminist perspective requires a critique of gender
roles, and this critique must include masculinity and femininity" (p. 14).
Those that fail to do this are understood as ecofeminine philosophies, not
ecofeminist ones.
ECOFEMINISM NON-FEMINIST --UNCRITICALLY GLORIFIES THE FEMININE
Victoria Davion, Professor of Philosophy, University of Georgia, ECOLOGICAL
FEMINISM, Karen Warren, ed., 1994, p.8-9.
In the next two sections, I argue thee at least some of the ideas coming from
thinkers identifying themselves as ecofeminist are, in very important ways, not
feminist. Because these ideas are not feminist, they cannot be ecofeminist.
These ideas glorify the feminine uncritically and thereby suggest that
embracing a feminine perspective will help humans solve the ecological crisis.
I argue that a truly feminist perspective cannot embrace either the feminine or
the masculine uncritically, as a truly feminist perspective requires a critique
of gender roles, and this critique must include masculinity and femininity.
While the views I have in mind critique masculinity, they fail to do the same
in the case of femininity. I shall therefore argue that these views are better
understood as ecofeminine, as they do not embrace a feminist perspective.
ECOFEMINISM UNDERMINES FEMINISM BY EMBRACING FEMININE ROLES
Victoria Davion, Professor of Philosophy, University of Georgia, ECOLOGICAL
FEMINISM, Karen Warren, ed., 1994, p.16.
If feminists fail to assert that at least some of the roles assigned to women
under patriarchy are damaging, we fail to assert the very premise that makes
feminism, the overthrowing of patriarchy, important. For, if sexist oppression
is not damaging to women, women have no reason to resist it. If it does cause
damage, we should expect to see this damage in traditionally assigned feminine
roles. Thus, ecofeminist solutions which assert that feminine roles can provide
an answer to the ecological crisis, without first examining how these roles
presently are, or historically have been, damaging to those who play them,
undermine the very conceptual significance and underpinnings of feminism that
ecofeminist philosophers such as Warren and Plumwood assert.
ECOFEMINISM FAILS TO RECOGNIZE SHORTCOMINGS OF FEMININITY
Victoria Davion, Professor of Philosophy, University of Georgia, ECOLOGICAL
FEMINISM, Karen Warren, ed., 1994, p.17.
In what follows I examine five ecofeminist views which fail to critically
examine femininity in its various forms. Each of them suggests that a more
"feminine" perspective on the environment will help solve the ecological
crisis. Because they all fail to consider that feminine perspectives are most
likely damaged, and fail to explore just what this damage might be, they fail
to explore the possible negative aspects of bringing more "feminine"
perspectives to environmental ethics. They fail to notice that femininity may
itself be a byproduct of patriarchy.
ECOFEMINISM ANTI-FEMINIST-- FAILS TO RECOGNIZE DIVERSE FEMINISMS
Victoria Davion, Professor of Philosophy, University of Georgia, ECOLOGICAL
FEMINISM, Karen Warren, ed., 1994, p.17.
In several of these views imply that there is something that is the feminine
role, that "the feminine perspective" is a unified perspective. However, if
feminism is to be understood as a movement for the liberation of all women, we
must understand that there is no one feminine voice. Rather, there are many
different feminine voices, many "feminine" perspectives. Therefore, views which
uncritically embrace unified or one- stance views of feminine sides of gender
dichotomies are not feminist; when these views are linked with ecological
perspectives, they are better understood as ecofeminine than ecofeminist. They
are, in fact, dangerous views from a genuinely feminist perspective.
ECOFEMINISM IS CONTRIBUTING TO AN INTELLECTUAL REIGN OF TERROR
Luc Ferry, Professor of Philosophy, the Sorbonne, THE NEW ECOLOGICAL ORDER,
1995, p.118.
Salleh's thesis, which is representative of that of the entire movement, is
that the hatred of women, which ipso facto brings about that of nature, is one
of the principal mechanisms governing the actions of men (of "males") and,
thus, the whole of Western/patriarchal culture. It would be wrong, seen from
Europe, to think that this is simply a fantasy, one of those hyperboles
characteristic of fringe groups, which we ourselves had abundant experience
with in the 1960s. For ecofeminism is beginning to occupy a less than
negligible place in the heart of American feminism and beyond: it is
omnipresent in universities, where it strongly contributes to the reign of
intellectual terror exercised in the name of political correctness and the
right to be different - the demand for which evolves easily into a demand for a
difference in rights.
THE BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM OF ECOFEMINISM DESTROYS RIGHTS
Luc Ferry, Professor of Philosophy, the Sorbonne, THE NEW ECOLOGICAL ORDER,
1995, p.126.
That the ecofeminists hate Western civilization and modernity is their
business. That they wish to find natural justifications for this hatred means
playing the game of biological determinism, of which all women will suffer the
consequences if it is to be taken seriously. The demand for the right to be
different ceases to be democratic when it becomes a call for a difference in
rights.
ECOFEMINISM DENIES WOMEN FREEDOM
Luc Ferry, Professor of Philosophy, the Sorbonne, THE NEW ECOLOGICAL ORDER,
1995, p.125-6.
Here we can measure the distance from existentialist feminism: it is by
affirming her difference from "males," by insisting instead on her specific
proximity to nature, that the woman, like the proletariat in days past,
incarnates the redemptive portion of humanity. The danger inherent in such a
position is obvious. Simone de Beauvoir had already foreseen it and Elisabeth
Badinter has analyzed it: an insistence on the "naturality" of women threatens
to revive the most time-worn cliches about "feminine intuition," the vocation
of motherhood and the irrationality of what could well, under such conditions,
pass for the "second sex." To assert that women are more "natural" than men is
to deny their freedom, thus their full and whole place within humanity.
ECOFEMINISM THREATENS FREEDOM
Janet Biehl, social ecologist, RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS, 1991, p.140.
That ecofeminists make allusions to the Western democratic tradition often in a
derogatory fashion is very disquieting. Given the massive bureaucratization of
what passes for "political life" today - the nation-state - it is
understandable that ecofeminists might call for a more personal, "caring"
approach to community life. The call for a caring approach is one with which
few radical ecologists - and certainly not social ecologists - would disagree.
But their glorification of the oikos and its values as a substitute for the
polls and its politics can easily be read as an attempt to dissolve the
political into the domestic, the civil into the familial, the public into the
private. Just as certain bureaucratic state institutions seem to loom over us,
casting a shadow over our freedom, so there is the danger that the oikos will
loom over us, casting a shadow over our autonomy.
CONSENSUS DECISIONMAKING IS AUTHORITARIAN
Janet Biehl, social ecologist, RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS, 1991, p.137.
By affirming that this "integration" is "essential for our survival," Estes
creates a quasi-authoritarian imperative. We are left with the impression that
there must be "unity" - or else! Estes' affirmation of group unity thus
conceals the fact that she dispenses with the notions of majority rule and
minority dissent so basic to the ultimate recourse of all democratic
decision-making. Estes, rather, argues that "we can no longer have majorities
and minorities: we need collective unity."
ECOFEMINISM SCORNS DEMOCRACY
Janet Biehl, social ecologist, RETHINKING ECOFEMINIST POLITICS, 1991, p.135-6.
Some ecofeminists who refer to the ideas of democratic politics actually do so
in a pejorative way. Ynestra King sees the democratic political tradition as
historically contrary to organic community. "The Western male
bourgeois...extracts himself from the realm of the organic to become a public
citizen, as if born from the head of Zeus" - as if the words "public citizen"
denote nothing but the grasping "male bourgeois" ego concerned only with
self-interest! For King, to draw on "the Western democratic tradition" is to
"work. ..with a political legacy that is founded on the repudiation of the
organic, the female, the tribal, and particular ties between people...I am
mindful that the original citizen in that tradition is male, propertied, and
xenophobic." This is convoluted thinking and atavism with a vengeance,
especially if one considers that the Western democratic tradition produced a
consciousness of universal freedom that ultimately opened the public sphere to
women and advanced beyond the parochialism of "tribal" life with its focus on
the blood tie.
|
