Dear Sarah,
I do think there's such a thing as "liberal ecofeminism"--it just
doesn't announce itself as such and the majority of scholars who call
themselves "ecofeminist" don't find much value in it (e.g., I'm thinking
of the introductory video, *Ecofeminism Now,* which is typical in its
depiction of liberal feminism as an isolated stream that doesn't
contribute to ecofeminist movement). In my seminar on ecofeminism, I
always include a unit on liberal e., because it seems to me that most of
the female Environmental Studies students on my campus are, in fact,
liberal feminists who aren't very self-aware about their feminism (most
try to avoid the label, in fact).
In my opinion, however, there is much ecofeminist activity I'd call
"liberal," defining liberal feminism as a movement to achieve
equity/equality for women within current economic and political
systems. Liberal ecofeminists work for women to have access to positions
of power (to make decisions, to set policy) within government and
corporate agencies managing land, water, and other natural resources.
Women pursuing careers in forestry, environmental management, or women
working in Sierra Club or other conservation-type organizations, and so
on, exemplify liberal ecofeminism to me.
To give an example that touches on your question about science. I
see Rachel Carson as a liberal feminist: in *Silent Spring* for example
she did not argue that science was an oppressive patriarchal construct
used to dominate nature: she argued for more science and better
science. Nowhere in *Silent Spring* is there an explicit discussion of
gender; nowhere is there an identification of "women's" environmental
issues, or of the woman/nature analogy, and nowhere does she argue that
her own position is inflected by gender. This is quite typical of
liberal feminists who tend to resist any focus on gender difference and
usually argue instead from what they think of as gender-neutral
principles (principles posited as "universal"). Liberals don't want
gender to make a difference: they want to pursue careers, work, etc.,
without having to suffer limitation because of sexism, which they define
as prejudice rooted in ideas about sex and gender difference. Liberal
feminists don't claim rights *as women,* but *as persons.*
For example, Rachel Carson's voice in *Silent Spring* is
authoritative, but she is not speaking "as a woman." Instead, she
speaks as a rational citizen. While she was often dismissed *as a woman*
(an *hysterical* woman at that), she boldly asserted her right to
participate in public discourses *as a person.*
Sarah Jenkin wrote:
> Also, is there such a thing as liberal ecofeminism? (I don't think
> so, but someone might disagree...)
>
> ##################################################
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> #################################################
> PRESIDENT; Rampant feminist's Assoc.
--
Glynis Carr
Associate Professor of English
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, PA 17837
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/gcarr
