ABOUT THIS BLOG START HERE :: WHAT IS ECO-FEMINISM?

SUGGESTED RESOURCES ON ECOFEMINISM

Search

ECOFEMINISM AND DEEP ECOLOGY

May 2, 2012

RECENT POSTS

ecofeminism on visual rhetoric in

environmental campaigns

critiques of ecofeminism

the chipko movement as a case study

of ecofeminism

ecofeminism and deep ecology

The link between women and nature?

ARCHIVES

May 2012

April 2012

Here I will briefly compare ecofeminism to deep ecology. [ To read a short introduction to deep ecology, try
this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology ] CATEGORIES
Some propose that deep ecology and ecofeminism have much in common, and it has been suggested that
the two views should work together since they share some of the same principal aims. This chart highlights case study
the areas in which the two frameworks are congruent.
chipko movemnt
These are the similarities between the two views:
connection between women and nature
1. Both focus on the relationship between humans and nature (though I claim that this is going to cause
problems between the two theories) deep ecology
2. Both make critical claims about the status of the human relationship with nature.
3. Both aim to end the domination of nature, at least to some extent. ecofeminism
Follow
objections to ecofeminism

visual rhetoric and ecofeminism

META

Register

Log in

Entries RSS

Comments RSS

WordPress.com

Advertisements

I will now examine the ways in which the two views are incongruent.

The Deep Ecology Viewpoint:

This perspective tends to be male centered; many of the leading voices within the movement are male.
And there is some sense in which the view is unified, much moreso than the ecofeminist position.

For deep ecology, the locus of the problem is identified as humanity; deep ecologists blame the human
centered attitude toward nature for the degradation of nature. They contend that humans ought not to think
of nature in an instrumentalist way and to acknowledge its inherent worth and value.
Report this ad
Deep ecologists charge that the ecofeminist mission becomes distorted through analyses of power and
domination. They claim that the environment would be better served if humans restored it to its own ends,
recognized its intrinsic worth, and acknowledged the priority of the sovereignty and autonomy of nature.

The Ecofeminist Viewpoint:

This perspective tends to be woman centered, though there are certainly men involved. The ecofeminist
movement can have difficulty achieving a unified voice, however, due to pluralism and due to the
movement’s desire to be inclusive.

For ecofeminists, the locus of the problem is not humanity in general, but androcentrism (which is a male
point of view or a male focus in analysis) more specifically. Ecofeminists also see patriarchy and unjust
domination as the problem, believing that environment injustice can only be addressed after human
injustice to other humans is resolved. In some sense, the ecofeminist view can be said to insist that an
environmental ethic should develop through a broader ethic centered first on issues of justice.

Ecofeminists claim that deep ecology is too shallow because it fails to acknowledge that the domination of
nature occurs as part of a broader scheme of oppression and patriarchy.

Issues of Wilderness

Deep ecologists often recommend policies setting aside expanses of “free nature” outside of human
control. For deep ecologists this policy can be justified because it recognizes the inherent worth of letting
nature “be” and because it encourages biodiversity and allows the ecosystem to escape human
interference and domination.

The ecofeminist response to this solution of deep ecology claims that “wilderness” is a constructed
concept. As a constructed concept, ecofeminists ask us to examine who determines what wilderness
means and what “free” wilderness would look like. They express the concern that by idealizing nature,
deep ecologists might unintentionally encourage dualistic thinking about nature, setting nature apart as “the
other.” Ecofeminists are wary of classifying nature as “other” because they contend when we think of
something as “other” it is more likely to be subject to domination resulting from patriarchal ideology.

Deep ecologists, of course, claim that they are not dualists in this regard. They would like humans to
ultimately view the natural world as an extension of themselves. Ecofeminists, on the other hand, are
suspicious of this expansion of self. They contend that it is possible that this expanded self will adopt a
patriarchal outlook.

Further, ecofeminists may point out that setting up these territories of free or wild nature denies that
humans, and especially women, do indeed depend on nature for daily life. Because ecofeminists want to
examine issues of power and inequality, they express concern about how setting aside “free” wilderness
would affect people. Uprooting human communities, they contend, to establish these areas has the
potential for injustice, particularly for women and those with less power in the process.

Discussion:

There are both similarities and differences in these two positions. Yet since deep ecologists do
acknowledge that free nature preserves and corridors should not involve unjust practices and should not
interfere with the basic subsistence of those that depend on those resources, I argue ecofeminists should
not be so dismissive of the potential to unite with this view. Because of the stated ecofeminist value of
inclusivity, it seems that reconciliation is worth pursuing.

Sessions, Robert. “Deep Ecology versus Ecofeminism: Healthy Differences or Incompatible

Philosophies?” Hypatia. Vol 6, no. 1. 1991.

Vance, Linda. “Ecofeminism and Wilderness.” NWSA Journal. Vol 9, no. 3. Women, Ecology, and the
Environment. Autumn, 1997.

Advertisements

Report this ad Report this ad

Share this:

 Twitter  Facebook 10

Category : deep ecology

← The link between women and nature? the chipko movement as a case study of ecofeminism
→

LEAVE A REPLY

Enter your comment here...

Blog at WordPress.com.