ON NOV.10, THE ESSEX ECOFEMINIST GROUP ASKED:
While there are some men writing in ecofeminism (Jim Cheney, Douglas Buege)
there does not seem to be any literature on how the environmental and
feminist movements together form a strong critique Of the dominant Western
masculine tradition. Does anyone know of any critical examinations (specifically
ecofeminist critiques) of this position, particularly one that addresses masculi
nity
rather than patriarchy. While non-essentialist ecofeminists have pointed out th
e
problems of a simple celebration of the 'feminine' there seems to be a theoretic
al
gap on the reformulation of masculinity in the light of ecofeminism. Do we stil
l
wish to keep some degree of polarity or are we looking at the creation of an
androgynous gender?? Any responses would be hugely appreciated!
Love Essex Ecofeminist Group xxx.
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUERY, I WISH TO CAUTION YOU IN YOUR SEARCH FOR PURELY
REDUCTIONIST CRITIQUES OF MASCULINE IMPLICATIONS IN OUR ENVIRONMENTAL
CIRCUMSTANCE. I AM CURRENTLY WRITING MY PHD DISSERTATION IN ECOFEMINISM
AND I MUST SAY THAT THE MOST COMPELLING WORKS, AS WELL AS THE MOST
INTELLECTUALLY DEFENSIBLE, ARE THOSE WHICH ARE COMING FROM A "CRITICAL"
ECOFEMINIST PERSPECTIVE. BY "CRITICAL" I MEAN THEIR TRACINGS, OR
GENEALOGICAL MAPPINGS, OF THE ORIGINS OF DOMINATION (IE. PATRIARCHY)
ARE NOT NECESSARILY CAUGHT UP SINGULARILY IN ISSUES OF MASCULINITY.
RATHER, DOMINATION IS THE BY PRODUCT OF A LEGACY OF DESTRUCTIVE DUALISMS,
SPECIFICALLY THE REASON/NATURE DUALISM. DOMINATION IS THEN CAST IN A
COMPLEX MATRIX OF RACE, CLASS, GENDER AND SPECIES DOMINATION. RATHER
THAN A "MASCULINE IDENTITY" BEING SEEN AS PROBLEMATIC, ITS A "MASTER
IDENTITY" BORN OF THAT MATRIX.
THE DISRUPTION OF THE DUALISM OR THE BINARY OF REASON/NATURE DOES NOT
MEAN THAT DIFFERENCE IS DISCOUNTED. ON THE CONTRARY, DICHOTOMIES--WHICH
SERVE TO ORDER OUR WORLD AS A USEFUL HEURISTIC--STILL ALLOW US TO
MAKE SUBSTANTIAL ACCOMMODATION TO SEXUAL AND BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES.
HOWEVER, IT IS WHEN THOSE DICHOTOMIES BEGIN TO FUNCTION AS DESTRUCTIVE
DUALISMS WHICH PRIVILEGE ONE OF THE BINARY (REASON) OVER THE OTHER
(NATURE) THAT DOMINATION OCCURS.
IN MY READING OF THEM, CRITICAL ECOLOGICAL FEMINISTS ARE ENGAGING IN
A PROJECT OF DISRUPTING THE LOGIC BEHIND THIS DUALISM--AND ALL THE
OTHER ATTENDING DUALISMS THAT FOLLOW. THUS, IT IS A PROJECT THAT
SEEKS TO UNDERSTAND DOMINATION AS MORE THAN A GENDER ISSUE, AND
IN DOING SO, I ARGUE IT REALLY BEGINS TO TAP INTO THE COMPLEXITY
OF THE CULTURAL (IE POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SPIRITUAL, AND SOCIAL)
DIMENSIONS OF THE ECOLOGICAL "CRISIS."
I SUGGEST THE WORKS OF VAL PLUMWOOD, KAREN WARREN, PETER QUIGLEY,
CHRISTINE CUOMO AND PHILLIP PAYNE AS A GOOD PLACE TO START. GOOD
LUCK.
KAREN BARNHARDT
DEPT OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
AND CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO
GREENSBORO, NC 27412
EMAIL:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 11 06:11:47 1995
(5.65/1.1.8.2/14Feb95-1154AM) id AA04470;
Sat, 11 Nov 1995 13:08:39 GMT
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 13:08:27 GMT
From: Richard Twine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CRITICAL ECOFEMINIST PROJECTS
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Karen Barnhardt,
I must admit to being a little confused by your response. I was
not aware that I was being reductionist. I find it hard to believe that you are
suggesting that the dualism of masculinity/femininity "serves to order our world as
a useful heuristic". Surely Western constructions of hegemonic masculinity are an
intimate part of the 'master identity' which defines and devalues women, people of
colour, the disabled, manual workers and nonheterosexuals, to name a few, as
'nature'. You seem to be implying that gender difference is a difference worth
perpetuating!?! I am aware of the importance of 'difference' but this differs to
'difference' which is either exaggerated or construed hierarchically. We would
appreciate it if you clarified your position. Thanks for your response.
Cheers Richard Twine (essex uni. ecofeminist group)
P.s. The work of Val Plumwood is much loved here!
