first,
i'd like to make the dileneation that my response to this is on the level
of development not on the level of its consistency with ecofeminism. i
think that every time an 'ecofeminist' rejects 'wimmin in development,'
they fragment the movement which in turn stops any kind of feminist
transition. i realize that feminists have to be critical, but to 'reject'
something is a different story.
next,
At 11:18 AM 8/16/96 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I don't reject it. Guess it depends on how you define it, but without
>development humans wouldn't have left the trees or caves. Development is a
>good thing if done with a bit of foresight and intelligence. It sounds
>kind of arrogant for us to sit here enjoying development and suggesting
>that other peoples shouldn't? To me development would include medical
>advances and the like. Who are we to say that people in the third world
>shouldn't enjoy good health and longer lives too?
i suppose i would call this a naive attempt to 'define' development, but it
establishes two things:
1) the form of 'development' that the womyn in development position critiques.
2) the form of thought that ecofeminism critiques.
development practices of the US government and agencies like the world bank
and imf are probably in my mind the most evil policies that have ever been
established on a global level. and i mean that sincerely. i've spent a
substantial part of my life in collegiate debate, analyzing the policies of
nations on a domestic and international level and how they react with or
effect the globe ecologically, militarily and qualitatively. they exclude
women, force nations into policies that skyrocet deforestation rates and
ecological harms, kill up to fortythousand kids every day (if you want, i
can produce source citations for this, its true, dont deny it) and force
people into further poverty.
i've spent a year doing five years of research on this area, and although
we might want to help the 'other' and integrate what our develpment banks
call the 'peripheries' with our 'developed centers,' we end up excluding
them and forcing them into the poverty that we've created for them. its
hard to believe that the people we vote for think these policies are
brilliant attempts to help the world, but its true.
as well as these policies being oppressive to the popel they try to help,
the mindset associate with progress is the same one that ecofeminism and
wid critiques on internal and external levels. ecofeminism is generally
(in the majority of the literature base) critical of the assumption that we
ought to move from our natural habitat (maybe not live in caves, etc, as
you note). Every minute we play into the framework of development as we
know it, and neoliberal economic growth, we take a step closer to killing
ourselves. its the mindset of growth that promotes wars and risk nuclear
annhilation (Trainer 82), inherently places us above the earth, using it as
a means to an ends, etc.
as for longer lives and life in general, a lot of well qualified authors
would disagree that life is such a great thing to pursue. all of the above
harms are constructed through our survivalist paradigm, etc. this is one
particular thing that irks me. that we just assume that are lives are
meaningful and neat. call me a radical ecologist or a radical in general,
but the majority of people dont even question the relative and a priori
importance of their lives. every day we live we risk killing (others, the
earth, the universe). cant deny that.
something to contemplate,
jason
------------------------------------------------------
Tell me what you see, tell me what you know.
Is there anyone who lives a painless life?
If there is show me so
The destitute and famished, demonic and the
banished, dejected and the ostracized,
the brainwashed and the paralyzed, the
conquered and objectified,
the few who see the other side
Tell me what you see! Its a mortal wretched cacophony.
why do we pity the dead?
bad religion.
the gray race
