In message Fri, 16 Jun 1995 13:52:03 -0600 (CDT), Maureen wrote: > I see ecofeminism > as the union of environmental and feminist perspectives with the ultimate > goal of walking lightly upon the earth with a greater understanding of > our role and what is sacred. Yes, it's anthropomorphic at times, but > through adopting a more respectful perspective of what is natural, we > can better understand what harmony and balance mean. -snip- Phil responds: [noting for whomever it may concern that anthropomorphic means human centered] Perhaps Maureen is aware of some deep ecologists who have challenged (perhaps "attacked" even) ecofeminist as too anthropomorphic. But I don't see ANYTHING anthropomorphic in Maureen's statement. Wouldn't deep ecologist need to distinguish "our role" in the larger whole too? Isn't a central issue about redefining that role (as Maureen seems to suggest)? What does seem anthropomorphic, even ethnocentric to me is the distinction of "nature" (not Maureen's "the earth") as one supposedly independent real world discovered by science (see post on nature/culture). Plenty of other cultures see "nature" in other ways, so by what right do we promote our (masculinist) culture's perspective of nature to the status of God's view. I strongly suspect that among the things Maureen wishes to understand as as sacred are the many different cultures of the world along with their "natures." And I heartily agree with this sentiment. That's one reason I can't accept scientific realism, especially as an ecofeminist. For me, what counts as nature is always relative to who's talking! Maureen, are we in accord on this or did you not want to be pulled into such a self-reflexive use of "natural"? (and forgive me if I'm overreading your post; I like the basic stance but want to refine or clarify it slightly to avoid the trap that I think Mary might have fallen into -- see post on nature/culture) ps Philip T. Shepard, Professor Lyman Briggs School Michigan State University [EMAIL PROTECTED]
