Ecofeminism: Women, Nature, and the Politics of Domination

Introduction: Ecofeminism as a Multivocal Framework

"Women just see that there can be no liberation for them and no solution to the ecological crisis within a society whose fundamental model of relationship continues to be one of domination. [Women] must unite the demands of [their] movement with those of the ecological movement to envision a radical reshaping of the basic socio-economic relations and the underlying values of this society…" (Mellor, 1997, p. 297).

Ecofeminism cannot be seen as a single theory or strategy espoused by any specific organization or movement. Ecofeminism can in fact be viewed as a choir with many voices contributing a diversity of pitch, range, sharps and flats, and indeed harmony in some cases as well. This paper reviews and critiques a variety of points of view — each of them related to the degradation of the planet's natural resources and the linkage that degradation has to the global neglect of the feminine gender.

Links Between the Neglect of Women and Environmental Degradation

Respected theologian and philosopher Rosemary Radford Ruether views ecofeminism as "an interconnection between the domination of women and the domination of nature" (Ruether, 2005, p. 91). In her book Integrating Ecofeminism, Globalization, and World Religions, Ruether explores these themes philosophically but defines her terms succinctly by placing the emphasis where it belongs: in an impressive critique of ethics, culture, history, and gender-based society. On an ideological-cultural level, Ruether explains, women are viewed as being closer to nature — more identified with "body, matter, emotions and the animal world" (p. 91). Those attributes are respected and admired, for the most part, in the global community.

However, on the socio-economic level, Ruether asserts, women are identified with "reproduction, child raising, food preparation, spinning and weaving," along with housework and other tedious duties and responsibilities (p. 91). This socio-economic image of women is "devalued in relation to the public sphere of male power and culture" (p. 91). Moreover, devalued classes of women are believed to be lacking in capacity for "intellect and leadership, denied higher education and located socially in the spheres of physical labor" (Ruether, 2005, p. 91).

Philosophy professor Karen Warren and colleague Nisvan Erkal insist they have "empirical data" to prove that nature plays a powerful role in feminine issues. Their narrative weaves a story of the abuse of the natural world juxtaposed with the actions women — who are at or near the bottom of the proverbial totem pole — take in order to mitigate the damage done. These empirical examples are microcosms of what is happening in other contexts to other women worldwide. In Third World nations, women are more dependent on trees and products from forests than men are (Warren et al., 1997, p. 5).

Trees provide five pivotal elements in many developing countries' households: food, fuel, fodder, home products (building materials, gardens, dyes, medicines, and utensils), and income. "Understanding the empirical connections between women and trees improves one's understanding of the subordination of women," Warren explains (p. 5). Women in developing countries must walk farther than men and carry fuel (wood) and fodder back to their homes. In New Delhi, for example, women walk an estimated ten kilometers — about seven hours — every three or four days (Warren, 1997, p. 6). When forests are denuded, women suffer.

In an empirical survey, women in Sierra Leone villages were able to identify thirty-one products from trees and bushes; men in those same villages could identify only eight (Warren, 1997, p. 6). Yet men own most of the trees and carelessly clear-cut forests without thought to the adverse effect on women. Water is among the most prized and precious commodities in the world, yet fewer than 50% of the world's population has access to safe, potable water. Women and children perform most of the water-collecting in India and elsewhere (p. 7). Misguided policies — or basic arrogance or ignorance — in gender-based Third World governments relate directly to health risks from impure water sources; indeed, four million children die annually from various waterborne diseases (Warren, 1997, p. 7). And while women perform the great bulk of water-collection tasks in India, it is "women and children who experience disproportionately higher health risks in the presence of unsanitary water" (Warren, 1997, p. 7).

Women farmers grow an estimated 60 to 80% of the world's food crops; in Africa, women raise 70% of food crops, yet women are poorer than men "because their access to credit is limited" by the men who control the banks (Warren, 1997, p. 8). Warren also explains that in a verifiable survey, 38% of pregnant Native American women on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota suffered miscarriages due to uranium mining on their land. Corporations run by men own the mines, but they use Navajo people to perform the labor.

Kari Norgaard and Richard York write in the journal Gender & Society that "nations with higher proportions of women in Parliament are more prone to ratify environmental treaties than are other nations" (Norgaard, 2005, p. 506). They note the accurate generalization that in "an unequal society" the impact of "environmental degradation" tends to fall "disproportionately on the least powerful"; hence females have been "uniquely and disproportionately affected by ecological destruction" (p. 507). Given that "the state is both capitalist and patriarchal" — power is gendered and women are usually on the outside looking in — it follows that "sexism and environmental degradation are interconnected processes" (Norgaard, 2005, p. 508).

The authors reference existing studies before laying out their own data. For example: Szagun and Pavlov (1995) found that Russian and German girls had "higher levels of environmental awareness than boys"; in Australia, girls showed a higher level of "environmental responsibility" than boys when socioeconomic levels were held constant; in Norway, research by Standbu and Skogen (2000) found that while boys and girls indicated similar ecological interests, "girls were more likely to join environmental organizations"; and research by Navarro (1998) and others showed similar findings in Spain (Norgaard, 2005, p. 509).

Since women both perceive environmental risks "as greater" and are "less willing to impose these risks on others," the authors assert that if women achieve a "higher status" within states it will lead to "more environmentally progressive policies" once women put their "views and values" into action (Norgaard, 2005, p. 509). Using the scale developed by Roberts and Vasquez (2002), the authors found that in most cases the higher the percentage of women in Parliament, the higher the ranking in the "state environmentalism" category.

In Sweden, 42.7% of Parliament is female and the country ranks 10th out of the 19 nations studied in terms of positive environmental laws. Denmark's women hold 37.4% of the seats in Parliament, ranking the country 3rd out of 19 states. Norway is close to Denmark in percentage of women in Parliament (36.4%) and ranks 7th in environmentally responsible legislative efforts. The Netherlands ranks 5th in percentage of female parliamentarians (36%) and 2nd of the 19 nations in "state environmentalism" (Norgaard, 2005, p. 512). By contrast, the United States ranks 11th in environmental stewardship and only 13.3% of the U.S. Congress is female. The data provided by Norgaard and York clearly shows that when women have political and legislative power, smarter environmental policies and laws are more abundant.

Professor Sue V. Rosser published a piece titled "Lessons for Feminism from Ecology" that remains thoroughly relevant to the theme of ecofeminism today. Rosser notes that feminists had previously used the "lens of gender" to critique the degree to which "androcentric bias" — a bias that assumes males are the dominant force and females are relegated to a sub-level — has twisted the practice and concepts of science. More recently, she asserts, ecofeminists have "extended this critique to ecology" (Rosser, 1991, p. 143). While male domination has precipitated the exploitation of both women and the environment, Rosser explores what the theories and methods of ecology might contribute "to the critique of feminism" (p. 143).

The global neglect of women in science is reflected in the fact that women have been excluded as experimental subjects in drug research. Certainly pregnant women have been excluded from experiments with pesticides and radioactive materials, but beyond that, "these drugs and materials are then used without ever having been tested on women" (Rosser, 1991, p. 143). And yet, notwithstanding their exclusion from testing, women's research has led to a vast body of knowledge about the natural environment.

Rachel Carson correctly extrapolated the deadly effects on the environment due to agricultural pesticides — DDT in particular — and changed the way government approached pesticide regulation (Rosser, 1991, p. 144). Carson's books, including Silent Spring and Under the Sea-Wind, had an enormous impact on the nation's understanding of environmental dangers and led eventually to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ellen Swallow Richards is credited with developing evaporation tests for "volatile oils," and her work became the world standard (called the "Normal Chlorine Map"). Her standard is used to detect pollution caused by humans, cities, and industry; Richards' innovation led to the very first food laws and water purity measurements in the United States (Rosser, 1991, p. 144).

The point of highlighting these women's accomplishments is to show that when women succeed in important research ventures their success is nearly always linked to science in a positive, helpful way. Their important work, Rosser points out, has aimed to "eliminate research that leads to the exploitation and destruction of nature" and to reverse trends that lead to "the destruction of the human race and other species, and that justifies the oppression of people because of race, gender, class, sexuality or nationality" (Rosser quoting Bleier, 1991, p. 144).

Another example Rosser uses is housewife Lois Gibbs — with nothing more than a high school diploma — who made a powerful discovery about the toxic dangers at Love Canal in New York State. Her science, her ability to rally people to her cause, and her perseverance led the State of New York to recognize that illnesses were in fact caused by the toxic waste in the Love Canal. The state and federal government ultimately bought all the homes in the Love Canal area (Rosser, 1991, p. 144).

The salient point taken from Rosser's work is that ecofeminists have made "explicit" the link between "the domination of women and of the environment through the androcentrism of modern science" (p. 144). She carries this point further by positing that while science and ecology have learned a great deal from feminism, feminism in turn can learn from ecology and science (p. 144). Rosser also criticizes previous feminist movements for being mainly concerned with the lives and viewpoints of middle-class white women and largely ignoring women of diversity from third world nations and other cultures. Working-class women, clerical women, and housewives have felt excluded because many middle-class white women have "exploited feminism for their own career advancement to the exclusion of other women" (Rosser, 1991, p. 148). Rosser insists that to be truly relevant, feminists must eschew elitism and interact with women of all socioeconomic and political backgrounds — just as creatures in the natural world adapt to radical changes in their environment.

Her analogy is compelling: when earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural phenomena produce new and uninhabited land, a new species will soon evolve, establish a niche, and even thrive. The classic example of this kind of adaptation is the finches of the Galápagos Islands, a species originally documented by Charles Darwin (Rosser, 1991, p. 149). Rosser's conclusion is that while ecological theory has certainly benefited from feminist research and critiques, feminist theory can equally benefit from critiques "based on the principles of ecological theory" (p. 149).

Core Differences Among Ecofeminist Scholarly Positions

Activist and author Marti Kheel writes that ecofeminists have "by and large" decided not to join the search for an "environmental ethic" or "savior theory" (Kheel, 1993, p. 243). Kheel asserts that the "vast majority" of ecofeminist writings up to the time of her essay reveals "a tendency to concentrate on exposing the underlying mentality of exploitation that is directed against women and nature within the patriarchal world" (p. 243). No one, single theory has been sought after, or is "expected to emerge," as the "most powerful or compelling" ecofeminist theory (p. 243).

There is a plausible reason for this approach. Prior to being in a position to change the "current destructive relation to nature," individuals must "understand the world view upon which this relation rests" (Kheel, 1993, p. 244). When ecofeminists come to grips with that understanding, they may find the "disease that has infected the patriarchal mind" has no cure.

Meanwhile, Pam Alldred and Sarah Dennison suggest that feminists — embracing their ecological analyses — tend "increasingly" toward theory, while hard-core environmentalists (male and female) turn more and more to action. The writers believe third-wave feminism has gone well beyond demands for equality and criticisms of dominant values and into the field of eco-action. They ask pertinent questions in Feminist Review: has feminism made such powerful inroads into Britain's political consciousness that its contributions "have been taken on board in current movements"? And if so, has the need for "specific feminist theory or politics" become ambiguous or irrelevant? Dennison believes that feminine analyses of environmental issues have been historically important and have helped "form eco-activism as it is today" (Alldred et al., 2000, p. 124).

Alldred also insists that the ecology movement has moved past the ignorance and chauvinistic negativity she witnessed at a campground session that was part of a protest sit-in — a scene marked by "militaristic machismo and misogynistic campfire humor" that suggested a coalition of ecofeminists and radical ecologists could not be sustained (Alldred, 2000, p. 125). However, subsequent to that event, pro-feminist eco-warriors in England endeavored to educate their colleagues about the need to work with ecofeminists for the greater good: preserving the natural world and educating the public about the need for environmental responsibility (p. 125).