Richard,
some thoughts: and thank you for the quote.
from my of view women who are denied power in a dominant culture may
turn to nature for pragmatic reasons. although in doing this they may
continue their lower status from the point of view of the dominant
hierarchy, perhaps their alignment with "nature" uncovers an ecological
niche or truth which will continue past the prime of culture or emerge
as yet another. and perhaps not.
> "Bothe radical and conservative feminists who argue for a distinct
> nature for women ground their arguments in women's close association with
> nature.
( this association, pragmatic, heightened by exclusion from other
resources for power, may have been claimed once in order to initiate
dialog as outsiders. as more and more women "succeed" to hierachic
levels of power it becomes increasingly obvious that both victimization
and affinity with wilderness are no longer universal to all women or
intrisically gender related)
The notion that woman has a distinct nature...
(clinical studies without cultural bias? to the extent that women's
"nature" is marginalized and exploited but not sustained it may be
similar to ecological "nature"... as a moiety women may respond in
similar ways or use ecology as metaphor or the obvious wild energy of
nature as guide to generate new cultural standards. breaking down the
nature culture dichotomy becomes a powerful political argument for
claiming explicit power within a culture. however, inclusion does not
always mean enlightenment. the dialog between inside and outside is
interesting. if investing in cultural power means creating new outsider
status... there may be more power for creative change when the outside
of the dichotomy is heard.)
and that her nature is
> tied in a special way to the natural world is thus central to a discussion
> of the implications of the nature/culture dichotomy that has permeated
> western thought. Rejecting the notion that women have a distinct, universal
> "nature" and the essentialism entailed by that notion is crucial to the
> deconstruction of the nature/culture dichotomy"
(and perhaps also to cycles of exploitation of women. when do we begin
to invest all "nature" and how? with political rights?)
>
> "This essentialist impulse leads to the same sterile
(or sterilizing?)
dichotomies
> of enlightenement thought that have been used to keep women in an inferior
> position"
> Susan Hekman (1990:106-108) _Gender and Knowledge:Elements
> ofa Postmodern Feminism_
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 28 13:12:42 1997
29 Jan 1997 09:11 +1300 (NZD)
29 Jan 1997 09:14:02 +1300
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 09:13:29 +1300
From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Nature/Culture and Essentialism
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Lincoln University
Dear Richard,
Thanks for posting your message regarding "essentialism." It
certainly has been one of the hottest topics in feminism, and it
consistently creeps into conversation soon after the word
"ecofeminism" is spoken.
My theoretical approach to ecological feminism tends to follow the
argument you quoted from Hekman (see below). Dichotomizing concepts
isn't overly useful for feminist theory for the reason she states.
It's also not very accurate. The nature/culture split predisposes us
to think of humans outside nature--yet another dichotomy
(inside/outside; public/private) some strands of feminism have argued
quite strongly against.
The conundrum is that people perceive inside/outside relations and
set them up (perpetuate them), i.e., they use power (in whatever form
it can be expressed) as a means to create a nature/culture,
insider/outsider split and then believe that split. While these
dichotomies are reductionist and sometime useful ways of "coping"
with the world, i.e., they remove the complexity of relationships,
they also "speak to us" because there is SOME truth to them. Perhaps
this "truth," has more to do with what is in our minds (how we are
socialized) than what is "natural."
Hmm, but then, how can we be sure of what is "natural"? This then
becomes yet another conundrum for the theoretical side of ecological
feminism to consider. By the way, it has practical consequences.
For example, if "natural" is everything derived from processes
created by or through organic entities, then the ecological
destruction which humans (as organic entities) create could be
regarded as "natural." Does this make it "right" or "good"? How do
we determine what types of environmental policies/practices we should
create? What does "sustainability" look like when natural is defined
in this manner?
Well, just a few extra ideas to ponder. I'd love to hear more from
others. I've added a couple of references below for further reading
on the "essentialist" issue.
Cheers,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Recommended Readings:
Grant, Judith. 1993. Fundamental Feminism: Cotesting the Core
Concepts of Feminist Theory. New York: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention
of Nature. New York: Routledge.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:27:37 GMT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mary mellor
Well nothing to do with Mary Mellor at all actually......Just hopefully
a catalyst for discussion...
"Bothe radical and conservative feminists who argue for a distinct
nature for women ground their arguments in women's close association with
nature. The notion that woman has a distinct nature and that her nature is
tied in a special way to the natural world is thus central to a discussion
of the implications of the nature/culture dichotomy that has permeated
western thought. Rejecting the notion that women have a distinct, universal
"nature" and the essentialism entailed by that notion is crucial to the
deconstruction of the nature/culture dichotomy"
"This essentialist impulse leads to the same sterile dichotomies
of enlightenement thought that have been used to keep women in an inferior
position"
Susan Hekman (1990:106-108) _Gender and Knowledge:Elements
ofa Postmodern Feminism_
Any thoughts?
Richard,
London
------------------------------
************************************
Stefanie S. Rixecker
Department of Resource Management
Lincoln University, Canterbury
Aotearoa New Zealand
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
************************************
