On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Susan Clayton wrote:
> So many people have said things on both sides that I agree with.
> Maybe it means something different for women to think of the Earth as
> Mother (a strong, nurturing figure with which/whom they can identify) than
> for men to think of the Earth as Mother (a limitless source of resources
> which they can count on to give without expecting any return and which is,
> for them, a somewhat incomprehensible figure). \
Which gets right to the heart of the matter: How much is our
"construction of reality" (including our use and understanding of a
metaphor) grounded in our personal experience of the world as
"positioned" and "contextualized" beings? If it is determined to some
important extent by this, then don't we need to make room in our culture
for *multiple* metaphors and *multiple* voices? And doesn't this
radically alter our understanding of "truth" and, therefore, require that
we think very, very carefully about the "scientific" basis for
environmental policy and other action choices?
> I hate to suggest that men and women have fundamentally different
> perspectives. Maybe what I mean is that one way of thinking of the earth
> as mother is more masculine (although some women share in this view) and
> one way is more feminine (although some men share in this view). In using
> such a metaphor, we would need to be aware of the implications for both
> viewpoints.
I think most of us are uncomfortable with this, because for so long our
"differences" were used as a "weapon" to keep us down -- by equating
difference with inferiority and superiority. On the other hand, *I* would
like to claim with pride some of the things which I think are "special"
about being a woman.
> That said, I myself am uncomfortable with the metaphor. My fear is that it
> would stop being seen as a metaphor and be perceived as an equivalence. But
> I don't mean to imply that my discomfort should generalize to anyone else.
Actually, that is a potential for *all* metaphors. What is metaphorical
and what is "literal" language changes according to context and over
time. For example, "the circulatory system" was once a metaphorical
joining together of a geometric semantic field with the semantic field
having to do with the flow of blood through the body. When first
introduced, it was considered very "odd" and nonsensical. Now, we take
it as quite literal. Some people call these "dead" metaphors, but I like
to think of them as dormant or faded. I have found that in situations of
deep rooted cogntive conflict -- where people disagree about the nature
of reality -- that "dead" metaphors get "resurrected." (How is *that* for
a metaphor?) What was taken as literal language (e.g., the forest is a
farm) is recognized as metaphorical when confronted with an alternative
metaphor (e.g., the forest is an ecosystem). Note that many if not
*most* people on *this* list will probably instinctively respond: But
the forest *is* an ecosystem! We all tend to literalize our preferred
metaphors....
With fields of *practice* where metaphors lead to *action* they not only
become literalized, but they also become institutionalized. Then, all of
the economic, social and political forces that make an organization or
institution such as the Forest Service function collude to mask the
metaphorical nature of the concepts which underlie the practice of
silviculture. You can change the institutional processes (such as budget
practices or decision making processes) and still not fundamentally
change the *practice* and the results. To change these, you *also* have
to alter the range of metaphors or models of reality upon which people
can base their actions.
I really believe that this is why the division between a "materialist"
and an "idealist" ecofeminism is a false dichotomy. Neither one is fully
effective by itself. If some people do not want to use "spiritual"
metaphors, that is fine. Metaphors are also at the heart of *science*
and *rational action* where they function as underlying metaphysical
models of the world upon which a given science or policy rests.
The key, IMHO, is to recognize the connection between *language* and
*material* (especially social and cultural) reality.
The end of my "lecture" :-) Sorry I got so verbose, but you can probably
tell that these are issues near and dear to my heart.
Peace,
Jayne
