Randi raises some very interesting questions when she writes that "We should
not confuse "equal opportunity" feminists who also believe in doing
environmental work as ecofeminists." If I'm reading her correctly, two things
disquality liberal feminists from "counting" as ecofeminists: (1) their own
disavowal of feminism and (2) the fact that liberal feminism doesn't generate
analysis about the connections between gender, sexism, and the environment,
but instead articulates environmental issues in gender-neutral (gender-blind)
ways that separate environmental from feminist issues (and I would add: that
often end up reproducing structures of domination). Is that right, Randi,is
that what you're implying?
If so, regarding #1 above, I don't feel obligated to to restrict my
understanding of people to the same terms in which they understand
themselves. In other words, and to return to the example of Rachel Carson,
just because Carson didn't call herself a feminist, doesn't mean I can't call
her one. Carolyn Merchant does something similar in her chapter on
"Ecofeminism" in *Radical Ecology*: she calls Chipka women, Lois Gibbs, and
many others ecofeminists when they themselves don't. I guess I've done this
pretty much without analyzing it. Randi, what are your objections to this?
#2 is a more serious critique. I agree with Randi that other kinds of
ecofeminism are much more productive in terms of understanding the connections
between sexism, other forms of social domination (racism, exploitation of
labor, etc.), and environmental crisis. (In a sense, the liberal feminist's
feminism and environmental activism are merely coincidental--they're not
organically connected.) I begin my course with liberal feminism and *Silent
Spring,* though, for several reasons. For one thing, I think any kind of
environmental activism begins with analysis of environmental problems:
*Silent Spring* definitely does that--its was a real wake-up call! (my
seminar's first library assignment is to find current descriptions of
environmental problems which we then compile as a resource for the class, but
I digress). I also like to expose my students (many of whom are
scientists-in-training) to science writing that is both accessible and
politically engaged--to encourage them to think about the possiblities of
becoming a "public intellectual" as well as to raise questions about the
obligations of the technocratic elite in a democratic society. I also like to
draw on recent scholarship on Carson that documents the amazingly sexist
response to her work and her embeddedness (both as a scholar and as a private
person) in networks/communities of women. That leads us very effectively to
the next section of the course which is on radical/cultural ecofeminism.
Actually, Randi, I organize the seminar much along the lines that you sketched
in your description of how various types of analysis contribute to ecofeminism
as a whole (see below)--that is, I move from liberal to radical then to social
and socialist ecofeminisms. I begin with liberal feminism because, even
though liberals can do excellent work (as Carson's case amply shows), liberal
feminism is *weakest* in terms of understanding the woman/nature connection
and the intersections of hierarchical social systems with environmental
issues. We build from there.
However, we don't just move beyond liberal feminism: *Silent Spring* remains
a touchstone for the class because of the stands that Carson takes -- among
them, her pro-science attitude and her instrumental (rather than intrinsic)
valuation of nature (i.e., the conservation/management approach --we
conserve/manage nature because we want to use it in certain ways). These are
important (albeit mainstream) debates and I don't like ecofeminism's
marginalization from them.
Finally, I don't like to *exclude* liberal feminism, because, as I said
before, that's where most of my female students are. Britta's post reveals
the continuing attraction of the liberal approach for many women (Britta's
"mix" of approaches is also interesting, by the way, too). I do get annoyed
by the backlash environment that makes liberals (today and yesterday as Rachel
Carson's case shows) want to disavow their own feminist identity. By
*including* liberal feminism, though, I hope to create a climate where women
don't have to do that and -- more importantly -- where more radical and
progressive ecofeminisms are more likely to be heard, considered, defended,
etc.
Maybe this wastes valuable class time, but I don't think so.
Am I wrong?
Randi, I hope I haven't misread you.
Looking forward to continuing the discussion!
Randi Zimmerman (CAS) wrote:
> What a great question! I agree with the original post, that a liberal
> feminist is not an ecofeminist. The person who wrote to the contrary used
> Rachel Carson as an example -- well, Rachel Carson refused to be called a
> feminist of any kind. We should not confuse "equal opportunity" feminists
> who also believe in doing environmental work as ecofeminists. The
> ideology of liberal feminism is inherently anti-essentialist, that is,
> there is no inherent difference between men and women. LF's believe that
> oppression (against women and non-whites) can be eliminated once barriers
> to opportunity are removed.
>
> Environmentally this plays out in our protective legislation -- i.e.
> mitigation of wetlands, saving owls, etc. I do not mean to diminish this
> work. Working at the DEP (Dept of Environ. Protection) can be an
> effective avenue for change as an ecofeminist. However, most ecofeminists
> I know understand that they are attempting to subvert the dominant system.
> A liberal feminist would see this as the end all, be all of ecofeminism --
> working within the system. Believing that the system will become more
> fair once everyone has a chance to be heard in the system.
>
> Granted the definition of ecofeminism is still in process, but the
> concepts that the way humans see/treat women and the way humans see/treat
> nature are intricately linked seems to be a common thread. From the
> radicals, ecofeminism seems to have elevated the "feminine" traits of care
> and nuturing. From the cultural feminists, ecofeminism has adopted the
> notion that culture shapes our identities and establishes a normative
> heirarchy where human/man is valued above woman/nature. Socialists have
> added the notion of system of domination. And finally, third wavers/woman
> of color has begun to define the concept of interlocking oppression.
> Besides attempting to legislate social change, I do not see how liberal
> feminism has advanced the evolving theory of ecofeminism.
>
> Well, I've rambled enough for now. Look forward to continuing the
> discussion.
>
> Randi Zimmerman
>
> "In the process of infinate beginnings, even immortality is mortal."
> -- Trinh T. Minh-ha
--
Glynis Carr
Associate Professor of English
Bucknell University
Lewisburg, PA 17837
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/gcarr
