Dear Stephanie and ECOFEMers,
When I related to nature as a political concept I meant it as pertains to
discursive situations such as policy for sustainability. Ecological limits
as such are not political, but as we relate to such limits in a political
context, I believe we should deal with questions of sustainability
politically rather than assuming policy makers can address the problem from
a neutral point of view using scientific terms. I think the latter works
towards detaching the question of sustainability from social questions. From
what I have read on Ecofeminism I would consider some ecofeminist work as a
critique of this so called scientific neutrality. I for one see the
connection of feminism and ecologism as contributing to the politicisation
of the sustainability debate.
However, what I meant in my post was not as far fetched as it may have
sounded, but more in line with the essentialism debate Richard proposed.
Assuming that people conceive nature through dichotomies of inside-outside /
closer-further etc., inherent in this would be a concept of nature as
something objective and un-related to the meanings associated with it. As
Stephanie pointed out the women/nature-culture dichotomy is perceived
through a pre-conception of what nature is. If when dealing with the
public-private debate the private sphere was politicised so as to show how
it was politically constructed to start off with, perhaps the politicising
of nature is needed to show how our use of the term is a social
construction. Rejecting the notion that women have an essential affinity to
nature is not enough as I think it still assumes some neutral concept of
nature. Polticising the question of "what is natural?" would, I feel, bring
to light several preconceived notions of nature and the connection between
nature and the social-political "other".
I am aware of the possible dangers of relativising the concept of natural. I
myself am in a constant dilemma in my environmental activities concerning
"green" definitions of what ought to be preserved as opposed to conflicting
versions. Can one assume some natural "truth" for one's actions and if so,
wouldn't such an authoritative stance simply recreate conceptions of nature
in a top-down formation? I prefer to think of environmental sustainability
in more consensual terms, but am open to new ideas.
I appologise for the long post,
Meira Hanson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You wrote:
>Dear Meira and ECOFEMers,
>
>Most definitely, I agree that what is "natural" becomes a highly
>political issue. This is why environmental policies are such a
>challenge to create as well as to implement. The ever-changing
>parameters of defining "the natural" or "the environment" become
>political issues because values, ideologies, etcetera are "at stake".
>Even so, some suggest that REAL ecological limits and thresholds
>exist. How we, as a species, contend with these limits is political,
>but the limits themselves are NOT political. Is it possible for
>"nature" to be BOTH
>politically/socially/culturally defined AND have an ecological basis?
>
>I'm open to banter on this!! <grin>
>
>Stefanie
>
>
