On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> it seems to me that ecofeminism is at least consistent with, if not embracing
> of, the notions of (1) satisfaction of basic human needs, (2)
> self-actualization, and (3) personal control over one's situation and
> community control over the local situation . . . these are what i understand
> by the term 'development'
> cheers,
> craig
It seems that you are ignoring some fundamental questions, such as: why
are "third world" nations "underdeveloped?"; Who keeps them
"underdeveloped?"; Do "first world" nations really want "third world"
ones to "develop?"; If so, why?; Who defines the terms and discourse of
"development" and "underdevelopment?"; Is this "first world"-led
"development" even desirable for "third world" countries (considering,
especially, things like the environment, division of labor, indigenous
peoples, subsistence economies, etc.)?, Who profits from "development" and
"underdevelopment?", etc., etc.
The above questions are central to ecofeminist analysis in general, and
to "third world" ecofeminist discourse, specifically.
-Susan
