On Mon, 24 Jul 1995, mary hallock morris wrote:
> Just an idea:
>
> We talk about Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism and their basic difference is that
> Ecofeminism is against Man-centeredness while Deep Ecology is against
> Human-Centeredness.
>
> It doesn't sound like a big distinction, but to womyn who have been the
> objects of sexism it is.
>
> Now, sometimes I wonder if we don't get to hung up on relations between
> humans and forget to worry about our relationship with the earth? Do others
> feel this way?
Yes, Mary, I do feel this way sometimes. I think ecofeminism has a great
deal to offer environmentalism in its critical analysis of some of the
conceptual structures that lie at the root of many problems, from our
destruction of the natural world to racism and sexism. But I worry about
the polarization alluded to earlier--while "controlling the reproduction
of Third world women" comes across as blatantly sexist and ethnocentric
(who is to do this "controlling? how? for what ends?), I have yet to see
a clear acknowledgment in the ecofeminist literature of the importance of
limiting human population
growth in all parts of the globe as a critical part of curtailing the
continued encroachment on nonhuman habitat, a major part, in my opinion,
of what constitutes the "domination of nature." Many deep ecologists are
also familiar with some of the information coming out of conservation
biology, and I read their concern as a sincere expression of the
rejection of anthropocentrism, if not always expressed in an appropriate
manner. But where are the ecofeminists who care enough about ending the
human domination of nonhumans to speak out on this topic, and make clear,
for instance, that part of "the empowerment of women" must include
attaining the awareness of the harm that "growth"--ever more people, with
ever-increasing needs for more "resources"--is inflicting on the nonhuman
world? Being quick to attack deep ecologists on this issue without
formulating their own opposition to this kind of domination can be taken
as an indication of continuing anthropocentrism on the part of some
ecofeminists. Can anyone offer an ecofeminist position that addresses
reproductive issues in a way that is consistently nonsexist,
nonethnocentric, and also nonanthropocentric?
Like to hear other thoughts on this.
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 24 20:01:14 1995
by VAXF.COLORADO.EDU (PMDF V5.0-3 #8140)
24 Jul 1995 19:55:52 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 21:55:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Toshihide Hamazaki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Graduate School
In-reply-to: "24 Jul 1995 21:05:22 -0400 from" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kim:
Your focus on graduate school is too wide to advise. But, I will suggest
you the Master degree of Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development or
Master of Ecological Anthropology in the University of Georgia. Both programs
are well organized and graduate students are dealing with wide variety of topic
s related to this subject. Some studentents are dealing with women's issue and
sustainable development in Guatemala.
Since this degree is highly interdesciplinary, you can take many classes from
other departments, too. Please let me know if you are interested.
Toshihide Hamazaki
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 25 09:25:44 1995
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 08:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Colette Palamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: ecofeminism newsgroup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ecofeminism and deep ecology
Hello! I have written a paper on this topic recently also. I asked myself
many of the same questions that have been raised on this list...is
ecofeminism against man-centeredness *instead* of human
centeredness?...Can a theory be nonanthropocentric? Nonethnocentric?
Nonsexist?
It seems to me that the essential differences between deep ecology and
ecofeminism lie in the fact that neither ecofeminists nor deep ecologists
have truly understood what the others are saying. I do not think that
ecofeminism opposes man-centeredness *instead* of human centeredness.
I believe that the crux of ecofeminist philosophy lies within
the logic of domination, which attacks ALL forms of subordination and
domination. Ecofeminism is based on feminist principles as far as its
ethics are concerned...I don't see it as a theory that FOCUSES on men as
the root of all environmental evils (which is what a lot of deep
ecologists claim it does...ie Warwick Fox).
I also question whether or not a theory can be nonanthropocentric, and if
it can, whether this is actually desireable. It seems that one must
distinguish a difference between human centered interest and human
chauvanism. I do not believe it is possible for humans to overcome a self
interest. After all, without it we would be unable to survive, unable to
protect our children. Along thhose same lines, human centered interest
(not human chauvenism) could be a big player in the preservation of the
environment. How? Even deep ecologists understand this idea (although
they wouldn't call is such). The logic goes: if you care about the Earth,
if you see it as part of yourself, then you will be less likely to hurt
it because it is part of you and you identify with it-- your self
interest has come into play. Deep ecologists speak of self realization,
which is understanding your sense of self as being part of all other
parts of the world. I believe this to be true-- everything is
interrelated. Also, this kind of indentification of self makes it much
esier for humans to understand and ultimately respect the
environment.
That's enough for now. What do others think???
Colette Palamar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Idaho
Departments of Environmental Science and Philosophy
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 25 09:46:01 1995
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:45:50 -0600 (CST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: deep ecology and ecofem
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm glad to see deep ecology as a topic for conversation here; I esp like the
comment (I forget who said it) that a philosophy may be flawed but still adapted
(hope I'm not paraphrasing too loosely here). That's exactly how I feel about
deep ecology. From what I've read of DE, it reminds me of the civil rights
movement and other liberatory movements where the men assumed the leadership
roles and imbedded yesterday's sexism in their vision of a better future. My
intro to DE was _Deep Ecology: Living as If Nature Mattered_, by Bill Devall
and George Sessions, a very good book, but also a perfect example of sexism in
an otherwise useful philosophy. I'll give two examples.
1) In explaining DE's roots in ancient religions, they write, "In a certain
sence, it [DE] can be interpreted as remembering wisdom which men once knew"
(80). Such gender-exclusive language, esp when it runs rampant through an
entire text, as it does in this one, indicates writers who haven't even begun
to think about gender as a cultural factor in maintaining oppression. I won't
recite the usual litany of examples of gender-exclusive language actually
excluding _people_ from full humanity, as I do for my students on occasion.
2) In codifying a literary tradition for DE, they list 15 names, 13 of which
are men. Only Mary Austin and Annie Dillard make it into the boy's club. And
as far as I can tell, ALL of them are Anglo, even though DE claims an affinity
with "primal peoples (including Native Americans)." (As with my first example,
this one is presentative of the whole text.)
I also found disturbing in this text a consistent construction of the earth as
female/mother/nurturer, a mindlessly romantic notion that, IMO, doesn't stand
up to even the most superficial scrutiny. In fact, it always burns me when
ecofeminism is perceived by non-ecofeminists as somehow celebrating the woman/
nature connection when my reading has shown me that ecofem is, in part, about
deconstructing that notion.
Now granted, I'm basing my critique of DE on only one book by only two guys
(and guys they are!). Is this book an indication of the sexism in other
representations of DE or is it an aberration? Where are there examples of
DE and Ecofem informing/complementing each other? I know Judith Plant
identifies as both ecofeminist and bioregionalist. Are these lables (ecofem,
DE, bioregionalist, biocentrist) by necessity mutually exclusive or are they
different adjectives for the same primary ecophilosophy?
On a different note, I once used the word "biocentric" in a class discussion
of Sarah Orne Jewett's short story, "The White Heron." Later, when the word
showed up on a midterm, a student defined biocentricity as vegetarians wearing
leather Birkenstocks! :)
warmly (from Houston!),
Sara
