Jayne, I find your field of research fascinating, and I do feel it has
significant implications for practice. I personally am very interested in
exploring the whole thread of "Earth as Mother" from a metaphorical
perspective; that is to say, seeing the earth as a mother implies:
1) seeing the earth as a living being; and 2) seeing the earth as a living
being on whom our lives depend.
This is not an argument for the metaphor being "true"; it is an explanation
of the usefulness I find in it. There may be implications of the metaphor
that are not useful, and other metaphors that might highlight other
important aspects of our relationship with the earth. I do feel that it is
important to uncover the hidden assumptions in our language, and that the
issue of whether we see the Earth, nature, etc, as "objects" or as "living
beings" to be a crucial one.
Rosa
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 12:26:05 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 11:26:28 -0800
From: Rose Zubizarreta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Letter to Editor - Wall at NM/Mexico Border
thank you for posting these inspiring words. After reading this post and Joy's
I feel heartened..
My own ecological concerns have led me to work in support of Native People's
land rights; it seems crucial to defend the diversity of cultures as well as
that of species. And one of the fundamental problems of our society seems to
be (an inherent assumption of capitalism?) the sense that everything is up
for grabs, that there are no limits to our growth, no boundaries within which
we say, OK, this is ours, we'll live here the way we want, & you get to live
in your way; but instead the need for constant growth that leads us to be
always casting an eye for the profit that lies elsewhere, on someone else's
land or undeneath it.
I don't know if it is possible to change that; if it is possible for our culture
to realize some sense of boundaries and limits that are respectful of others,
yet it seems neccesary. And, if we were to see this process as an addictive one,
this is where to me spirit comes in, following the model of recovery that
understands addiction as a fundamental but misplaced longing for spirit.
Is it possible for us to discuss this issue with generosity towards each other?
I truly don't want to reopen any wounds; and I must admit that I don't think
I understand too well what people on this list mean by "materialist" ( I have
only joined recently.) Also, I am aware that there is a "shadow" side to
any discussions of spirit: the danger of intolerance, attachment to our own
views, etc. AND YET since that in itself is such a pressing issue in the world
at large, a discussion here may be worthwhile. I don't think assimilation is
an answer to ethnic hatred; likewise I don't think avoiding talk of spirit
is an answer to religious intolerance. This may seem to be wandering far from
the topic of this list, but I don't think the prevailing winds of religious
fundamentalism bode well for ecofeminists as well as most other forms of life..
To try and wrap this post up: regarding the earth as a living being seems a
helpful metaphor at least (to some it is a spiritual belief). I don't think
it is something we must all "agree" or "subscribe" to; but I am genuinely
curious to understand the points of view of those who think that it isn't
helpful. Likewise, lack of a "spiritual" (for want of better words) relationship
with the natural world seems to me the source of our ecological crisis, just
as lack of respect for the "spiritual" dimension of women and the appropiation
of God as male one of the fundamental underpinings of the patriarchy. I'm aware
this might be a minority perspective on this list; i welcome dialogue with
those of any persuasion who deem this discussion to be of value, and apologize
to the rest of you...
Rosa
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 14:48:29 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 13:53:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Faith Freewoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Carol Meeds WPB 407-433-2650 x 113 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PMS, progesterone and RAGE!
In-Reply-To: <A52ZVRJGEWPS*/R=WPB1/R=A1/U=MEEDS_C/@MHS>
Carol, I don't have an email connection for you ... but I wanted to be
sure that you're familiar with the excellent and well-informed work of
Susun Weed. I just attended a menopause workshop and an additional
lecture with her (after acquiring two of her books) and I am VERY
impressed with what she knows and what icons she's willing to bust
relative to hormones, the medical and healing professions, and women's
rights and rages. I'll give you (and anyone else) more info if you like.
Faith
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 15:22:10 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 14:26:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Faith Freewoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Rose Zubizarreta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Earth as Mother/Spirituality
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Rose Zubizarreta wrote:
> Likewise, lack of a "spiritual" (for want of better words) relationship
> with the natural world seems to me the source of our ecological crisis, just
> as lack of respect for the "spiritual" dimension of women and the appropiation
> of God as male one of the fundamental underpinings of the patriarchy. I'm aware
> this might be a minority perspective on this list; i welcome dialogue with
> those of any persuasion who deem this discussion to be of value, and apologize
> to the rest of you...
One of the underpinnings of a mystical or spiritual (as opposed to
religious) sense of the world is a feeling of CONNECTION or COMMUNITY
with all that is or, as the Lakota say, with all my relations. Most
patriarchal religions have taughts us that power, authority, numinosity
and wisdom are all "out there" and we must look "out there" to achieve
anything. And, by extension, we understand that whatever we impact
intellectually, emotionally and physically is "out there" (i.e. not us)
and therefore what we do them does not affect us.
The mystical position teaches that by going within, or by softening the
barriers, we can experience ourselves as all that is, and vice versa ...
how can you slaughter and slash when it is a piece of yourself under the
tractor and sword?
In other words, I agree with you, Rose!
I'm also interested in discussion of the pros and cons of concieving the
Earth as Mother. Part of me believes strongly that anything that causes
separation is ultimately at best a step in the right direction, and
assigning gender to the large forces in our lives IS separatist. But
there is so much in the metaphor of E as M which attracts me, and which
seems to draw people in and create empathy ... **@@**!!
Faith Freewoman
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 18:09:39 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 17:09:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Coyote1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Faith Freewoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as Mother/Spirituality
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950322141715.5790J-100000@case>
Faith and Rose and whoever else -
I agree wholeheartedly with you on the issue of denial of the spiritual
as being a root of the desecration of our Mother. This concept is
something we must re-learn and resurrect from our group memory if the
Earth is to continue to be habitable. Traditional peoples everywhere
(yes, your ancestors and mine and all our relations) live(d) by this
concept, and the wisdom (a female concept in the Hebrew Bible and
elsewhere) is out there for us to grasp - look back far enough and your
own ancestors can give it to you.
What is inherent in these ancient wisdom traditions is a concept of
balance that does separate male and female. We are separate, but it is
only recently in the history of the world that that separateness
contained a value judgement - about the time it became HISstory. An
analogy I like to use is the nickel cad battery - it has positive and
negative poles, but that doesn't carry a value judgement, since nothing
would run without both poles!
As I see it, we must refuse to accept the patriarchally imposed value
judgements and their attendant heirarchies and reach out to people to
show them that those attitudes don't work, haven't worked and will not
work. What I have found works best is always to call people on it when
they say things that reflect patriarchal (non)thinking. I do it gently,
and in good humor and usually it works.
I have a tendency to get long winded as you may guess, I'll leave it here
and jump in again later in the discussion.
Jacque
J. Higgins-Rosebrook
NOAA/NWS Stampede Pass
P.O.Box 128
Easton, WA 98925 USA
(360)886-1531
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Faith Freewoman wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Rose Zubizarreta wrote:
> > Likewise, lack of a "spiritual" (for want of better words) relationship
> > with the natural world seems to me the source of our ecological crisis, just
> > as lack of respect for the "spiritual" dimension of women and the appropiation
> > of God as male one of the fundamental underpinings of the patriarchy. I'm aware
> > this might be a minority perspective on this list; i welcome dialogue with
> > those of any persuasion who deem this discussion to be of value, and apologize
> > to the rest of you...
>
> One of the underpinnings of a mystical or spiritual (as opposed to
> religious) sense of the world is a feeling of CONNECTION or COMMUNITY
> with all that is or, as the Lakota say, with all my relations. Most
> patriarchal religions have taughts us that power, authority, numinosity
> and wisdom are all "out there" and we must look "out there" to achieve
> anything. And, by extension, we understand that whatever we impact
> intellectually, emotionally and physically is "out there" (i.e. not us)
> and therefore what we do them does not affect us.
>
> The mystical position teaches that by going within, or by softening the
> barriers, we can experience ourselves as all that is, and vice versa ...
> how can you slaughter and slash when it is a piece of yourself under the
> tractor and sword?
>
> In other words, I agree with you, Rose!
>
> I'm also interested in discussion of the pros and cons of concieving the
> Earth as Mother. Part of me believes strongly that anything that causes
> separation is ultimately at best a step in the right direction, and
> assigning gender to the large forces in our lives IS separatist. But
> there is so much in the metaphor of E as M which attracts me, and which
> seems to draw people in and create empathy ... **@@**!!
>
> Faith Freewoman
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 19:28:28 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 21:28:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Bertina Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Coyote1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth as Mother/Spirituality
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I must respectfully disagree with you. To me and others who are not
spiritualists do not have to be spiritually connected to anything to have
a connection to all living things including the Earth. The concept of the
Earth as a living thing is fine, but I do draw a line as to what sort of
living thing it is.
As I have said before, though in angry tones, is that just because one is
not spriritual does not make one uncaring of ecofeminism. It doesnt even
mean I am only using partriarchal language or that its intrinsic to me
because I sound like I have only one-sided viewpoints.
People who want to be seperatist are, doesnt matter of ones viewpoints.
Everyone has differing viewpoints, I do not believe there is a single
person who can fully agree with another person on all the issues.
What seperates people is the way one chooses to live and the way one
chooses to interact with others. Saying that people are desecrating our
Mother because people are in denial of the spiritual is the same as all
the Christian Coalition going around saying that the only way crime,
violence, and teen pregnancy can be slowed is through family values.
I find such opinions ludicrous and wrong. It is definitly seperatist in
viewpoint and does not welcome healthy relations.
I think people wanting to change other peoples opinions on such things
are treading on dangerous ground.Whether its right or wrong is debatable
and very relative.
I believe in relativism and believe seperatist talk is exclusionary and
accomplishes little.
My 2 cents
Bertina Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Coyote1 wrote:
> Faith and Rose and whoever else -
>
> I agree wholeheartedly with you on the issue of denial of the spiritual
> as being a root of the desecration of our Mother. This concept is
> something we must re-learn and resurrect from our group memory if the
> Earth is to continue to be habitable. Traditional peoples everywhere
> (yes, your ancestors and mine and all our relations) live(d) by this
> concept, and the wisdom (a female concept in the Hebrew Bible and
> elsewhere) is out there for us to grasp - look back far enough and your
> own ancestors can give it to you.
>
> What is inherent in these ancient wisdom traditions is a concept of
> balance that does separate male and female. We are separate, but it is
> only recently in the history of the world that that separateness
> contained a value judgement - about the time it became HISstory. An
> analogy I like to use is the nickel cad battery - it has positive and
> negative poles, but that doesn't carry a value judgement, since nothing
> would run without both poles!
>
> As I see it, we must refuse to accept the patriarchally imposed value
> judgements and their attendant heirarchies and reach out to people to
> show them that those attitudes don't work, haven't worked and will not
> work. What I have found works best is always to call people on it when
> they say things that reflect patriarchal (non)thinking. I do it gently,
> and in good humor and usually it works.
>
> I have a tendency to get long winded as you may guess, I'll leave it here
> and jump in again later in the discussion.
>
> Jacque
> J. Higgins-Rosebrook
> NOAA/NWS Stampede Pass
> P.O.Box 128
> Easton, WA 98925 USA
> (360)886-1531
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 19:32:02 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 21:32:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: materialist ecofeminism
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I thought I would post my thoughts of materialist ecofeminism in response
to several recents comments, like this one:
> I must admit that I don't think
> I understand too well what people on this list mean by "materialist"
I can't speak for others, who may have other conceptions of materialism,
but I think of materialism as a philosophic position / framework which is
not "idealistic" (or spiritualistic) in the sense that it does not accept
non-material (hence the term) ideas or arguments about the nature of reality.
In other words, if someone were to ask me about the world, as a materialist I
would talk about evolution, rocks, animals, people, the atmosphere, etc.,
but I would not talk about spirits or gods. (I don't believe in these
things.)
I think this is a relevant idea to this list, because as we have seen by
some recent posts, some ecofeminists find great strength in conceptions
of nature which combine spiritual and material ideas.
However, my sense is that there is also a group of ecofeminists who - like
myself - consider themselves to be materialist ecofeminists. I think the
philosophic difference has important practical implications, particularly
with respect to issues which differentiate between essentialist and social
ecofeminist praxis.
While ecofeminists may agree on certain principles, my sense is that the
split between idealists and materialists is in some sense irreconcilable.
Any thought about this?
Joel Wainwright
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 20:43:45 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 22:43:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Bertina Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: materialist ecofeminism
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I agree, though I dislike the word materialist(I dont have enough money
to be!!!!!), I guess I am a materialist ecofeminist in that definition of
one.
Bertina Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Wainwright Joel David wrote:
>
> I thought I would post my thoughts of materialist ecofeminism in response
> to several recents comments, like this one:
>
> > I must admit that I don't think
> > I understand too well what people on this list mean by "materialist"
>
> I can't speak for others, who may have other conceptions of materialism,
> but I think of materialism as a philosophic position / framework which is
> not "idealistic" (or spiritualistic) in the sense that it does not accept
> non-material (hence the term) ideas or arguments about the nature of reality.
> In other words, if someone were to ask me about the world, as a materialist I
> would talk about evolution, rocks, animals, people, the atmosphere, etc.,
> but I would not talk about spirits or gods. (I don't believe in these
> things.)
>
> I think this is a relevant idea to this list, because as we have seen by
> some recent posts, some ecofeminists find great strength in conceptions
> of nature which combine spiritual and material ideas.
>
> However, my sense is that there is also a group of ecofeminists who - like
> myself - consider themselves to be materialist ecofeminists. I think the
> philosophic difference has important practical implications, particularly
> with respect to issues which differentiate between essentialist and social
> ecofeminist praxis.
>
> While ecofeminists may agree on certain principles, my sense is that the
> split between idealists and materialists is in some sense irreconcilable.
>
> Any thought about this?
>
> Joel Wainwright
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 22 20:58:52 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 22:58:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Rose Zubizarreta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SEMANTIC FIELD THEORY
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 22 Mar 1995, Rose Zubizarreta wrote:
> Jayne, I find your field of research fascinating, and I do feel it has
> significant implications for practice. I personally am very interested in
> exploring the whole thread of "Earth as Mother" from a metaphorical
> perspective; that is to say, seeing the earth as a mother implies:
> 1) seeing the earth as a living being; and 2) seeing the earth as a living
> being on whom our lives depend.
Every metaphor has good points and not so good points. You point to the
positive implications of seeing the earth as a living being and in
cultures which respect women and highly value mothers, earth as mother
can be a powerful, environmentally positive metaphor. On the other hand,
as many people have pointed out on this list in the past -- in a culture
which devalues women, earth as mother, may provide justification for
"raping" the environment. All of which indicates that metaphors are
culture and context dependent.
For a good study of the pluses and minuses of two recently popularized
metaphors for the environment (the web and spaceship earth), I recommend
"The Web and the Spaceship: Metaphors of the Environment" by Star A.
Muir. In EtCetera, Summer 1994, vol 51, no. 2.
> This is not an argument for the metaphor being "true"; it is an explanation
> of the usefulness I find in it. There may be implications of the metaphor
> that are not useful, and other metaphors that might highlight other
> important aspects of our relationship with the earth. I do feel that it is
> important to uncover the hidden assumptions in our language, and that the
> issue of whether we see the Earth, nature, etc, as "objects" or as "living
> beings" to be a crucial one.
Certainly there are many who would argue that the value of a metaphor
rests on its "usefulness" or its "power" to "effectively" explain
experience and guide action. Such a pragmatic approach to
evaluating/selecting among metaphors requires that we discuss and make
decisions about what we mean by "useful", "power", "effective", and I
would argue that can only be done through moral/ethical discussion,
debate, and reflection.
Jayne
