Forwarded message:
>From msolomon Sun Feb 19 02:20:55 1995
Subject: Re: ecofem and "neo-paganism"
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 02:20:55 +1100 (EST)
To summarise Jim Roper inadequately (for the sake of brevity),
So we want to use "sprituality" as a rationale for the
> preservation of nature, or for it to be a large component of that.
>
....
I agree with most of what you say, Jim, but I have a couple of problems with
it: Firstly, your argument sounds uncomfortably instrumentalist. In both
your discussion of the usage of the word 'spirituality' and the word
'interconnectedness', there seems to be an assumption that the reasons for
applying these words are purely for preserving/protecting nature (which you
call 'her' ... problematic also). Surely the point is that we are dependent
on nature for our sustenance, be it physical, spiritual or whatever one
chooses to call it. To me, then, the term interconnectedness refers to
interdependence.
Secondly, I never refer to nature as 'female', because to me this
embodies the mindset of oppression and denial of this dependency. Men
'protect' women, whilst denying that in reality they are feeding off them.
Does nature want to be 'protected', or simply free from the abuses?
>
> When we want to use some ambiguous concept of "spirituality" as a base
> from which to protect nature, we breed confusion, discontent, and in
> fact, perhaps non-acceptance of others. I would suggest that the subject
> we are dealing with is too important to use such ambiguous,
> unique-to-each, concepts when we are trying to protect the thing (nature)
> that evokes all of these feelings. That is, the rationale we use must be
> sensible to all, it must be understood by all, and communicable to all.
> Sure, we can have our own "spiritual" or otherwise reasons for caring
> about nature, but we must recognize that each of us has our own and not
> that we all share the same one. But when we talk of nature, and how to
> preserve her and protect her, then we must use concepts and words that
> are accepting and not delimiting. Spirituality to me is too loaded, too
> "new-age" and too ambiguous for me to ever find it useful. We could
> substitute the word "feeling" for "spirituality" and it would work just
> as well. Hey, let's see how far that goes:
>
Yes and the words 'protect her' are equally loaded for me ....
Miriam
--
Miriam Solomon
Science and Technology Studies
University of Wollongong
Wollongong
NSW 2522
Australia
Fax: +61-42-213452
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Feb 19 07:08:32 MST 1995
(PMDF V4.3-7 #7204) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun,
MR-Received: by mta WPB1; Relayed; Sun, 19 Feb 1995 09:10:59 -0500
MR-Received: by mta EPIC66; Relayed; Sun, 19 Feb 1995 09:11:02 -0500
Alternate-recipient: prohibited
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 09:08:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: the suburbs
To: ecofem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Posting-date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 09:10:00 -0500 (EST)
Importance: normal
UA-content-id: A28ZVQED3OQS
A1-type: MAIL
Hop-count: 2
Diana - You are NOT ALONE. As a State worker in the Agency
responsible for protecting the environment int this southern
coastal state, I am amazed (or I used to be) at the pervasive
message here that "Tree Huggers" are not welcome.
