I thought Jim Roper made an excellent response to Juniper. However, I
even have difficulty with the substitution of "feeling" for "spirituality."
One of my concerns with modern feminism generally and ecofeminism
speifically is that in order to implement change in the way both
the public and private spheres are constructed, feminism and ecofeminism
must somehow reach the unconverted, the skeptics. On its present paths I
question whether it can.
I approached my first studies of/in ecofeminism with interest but was
ultimately dismayed by the constant linking of spirituality with
ecofeminism; I fear it borders on an intellectual Ludditism. I understand
spirituality as something personal, private, and intimate lest,
as in the cases where it has been thrust into the public sphere, violent
disagreements (e.g., wars) result.
I am also concerned with what seems to be an increasing commodification
of language and symbols by ecofeminists, most especially "goddess" and
"spirituality." Doesn't the continual inclusion of such terms result in
a decrease in actual meaning and value, an increase in confusiong, and at
the same time discouraging feminists like me who agree with J.S. Mills --
spirituality [religion] may be morally useful but is not intellectually
sustainable?
In any event, I am trying to see what ecofeminism can actually
accomplish, what changes it can actually effect versus promises of a
near utopian idealism.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 18 16:07:56 MST 1995
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 17:12:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ecofem and "neo-paganism"
To: James Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A few quick thoughts on James' post: You mention that
spirituality is often used to describe a feeling or belief that those who
have feel would serve all of us well to the point that they try to
indoctrinate/force others to subscribe to it. Here I think that you are
confusing spirituality with religion. Religion is a social construct. A
path created by people. Sometimes this path leads to spirituality,
sometimes not. Sometimes it brings it out in people, sometimes not.
Spirituality itself, however, is a deeply personal thing. It is something
which is hard enough to share, let alone force. I agree with your
critique of the _potential_ danger or religious zealots, but it is
important to realize that this does not speak to the issue of spirituality.
My other comment is that I found your use of the words "she" and
"her" for describing nature/ the earth, very odd. This, to me, is a very
spiritual way to think of and talk about our mother. I myself think of
Gaia as our mother (not as a metaphor, I mean it literally), but I
consider that a spiritual view. It could hardly be called a rational
scientific one, given geologists and ecologists stand on even the most
basic aspects of this view (such as those James Lovelock addresses with
his Gaia hypothesis). Thus, I am puzzled by your choice of these words.
If you only mean it metaphorically, I think you should reconsider in the
interest of avoiding confusion (which seems to be one of your objectives :)
End my $0.02
Jon.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 18 17:36:44 MST 1995
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 08:41:59 +0800
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kylie Matthews)
Subject: Re: ecofem and "neo-paganism"
>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.
I agree that we shouldn't use language that would alienate people from the
cause. I would however put it this way. That it's great to have a feeling
of spirituality about nature - it is in fact the most ancient of female
religions but if expressing religion is likely to be detrimental to the
environment (by alienating others who may fear ideas of different
especially pagan religions) then what is more important? Surely it is more
important to protect the environment than to ?prosletize(I don't know if
thats what she was doing) our religion. kylie
