Please send your comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Text of the review published in
 
Economic and Political Weekly, VOL XXXIV No 15,April 10,1999
 
Review by K.Ravi Srinivas
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
The Challenge of EcoFeminism
 
Ecofeminism  As Politics:Nature,Marx and the Postmodern-Ariel
Salleh- London,Zed Books-1997-Pp xvi+208,$22.5/Pound Sterling
14.95(paperback) ISBN 185649 400 4
 
This  book is ecofeminism as articulated by Ariel Salleh, who
has    made   significant   interventions   in   debates   on
ecofeminis,deep  ecology  and  social  ecology.By proposing a
common       framework      that      encompasses      peace,
gender,environment,socialist     perspectives     based    on
materialist  analysis and insights from critical theory. This
is  an ambitious project, given the range of perspectives and
issues  she  tackles in this book. Her ecofeminism is claimed
as   an   embodied   materialism  that  aviods  the  trap  of
essentialism.
 
In  the  first  part  she  provides  an overview of women and
ecopolitics  and  argues  that ecopolitics however radical it
may  claim  to  be  is often insensitive to gender issues.She
places  women as the class base for change.This she argues is
not  based  on  any  inherent or essentialist view but on the
current  positioning  of  the  women  , many of them whom she
refers   to  as  re/sisters  in  the  context  of  capitalist
patriarchy  and  increasing  influence  of  capitalism  on  a
global  scale. She is critical of liberal feminism and argues
that   mainstream   feminism   not   a  radical  critique  of
androcentric  colonisation  by  the  West.   According to her
'Women   do   indeed   have   radical   chains;their   social
containment  in a sexualised reproductive sphere is bolstered
by    exclusion    and    harassment   from   male-controlled
institutions   ...     An  emanicipation  of  the  relational
sensibility  of  women  and  its  reclamation  by  women will
release earth energies'.
 
In  the  next  part she provides the basis of the ecofeminist
analysis  and  'embodided materialism'.The common subjugation
of  women and nature throught western history, in both theory
and  practice  and  domination  of women as nature is pointed
out  by  her.Drwaing  on the work of Sherry Ortner she argues
that  the core assumption of this domination is the man/woman
=  nature  divide  is  furthered  by instrumental reason.This
dualistic  logic  negates  both women and nature and they are
denied   of   any   voice   or  agency.In  other  words  this
subordination  of  women  and nature negates life and it is a
'psychosexual  fuse'.  Based on this she builds up a critique
of  Marx  and  Marxism  and Marxist critque also suffers from
this  fatal  flaw.That  is  both  women, in their capacity as
reproducing  the  conditons  of  production  and nature which
sustains  the  very means of production are relegated and are
not  given  the  consideration  they  deserve in the works of
Marx.She does not dismiss Marx altogether but only points out
that these were the missing elements in his works although he
was  sensitive to the question of degradation of Nature.  She
argues  that  the fundamental contradiction in the capitalist
patriarchal  system  is  the  nature-woman-man  relationship.
Capitalist  patriarchy  according  to her only aggravates the
domination  of  women  and  nature  and the global assault on
nature,women  and indigenous communities has to be understood
in  this  perspective.She negates the claims that development
will benefit women.
 
In  the next part she argues that ecofeminism goes beyond the
second    wave   and   liberal   feminisms.By   building   on
socialism,feminism  and  ecology it is possible to provide an
interpretation   of  man-woman-nature  relationship  that  is
sensitive to the concerns of women across continents for they
face  similar,  if  not  identical  threats  from  capitalist
patriarchy.   The epistemological framework of ecofeminism as
advocated  by her is explained in the subsequent chapters.The
disconnected  objectivised  prerspective  of  nature as terra
nullius  and  dualisms  that haunt the paradigms that explain
man-woman-nature  relationship  are  exemplified  in  diverse
projects  ranging  from bioprospecting,genetic engineering to
mapping  the human genome.Such projects are being resisted by
re/sisters,  indigenous  communities  who provide alternative
perspectives   and   an   alternative   epistemology  can  be
formulated  from  their  life  and struggles, an epistemology
that   negates  the  narrow  specialisation,  that  tries  to
understand  nature  as dead but through continuos interaction
and   awreness   about  the  nexus  between  life,nature  and
culture.   This epistemology based on embodided materiaism is
an  alternative  to  the  technoscientifc understading of the
environmental  crisis  and  development  as  the solution for
this crisis.
 
She  calls  for  a  reading  of  Marxist  theory that favours
abstraction  grounded  in  practice  and  analysis at several
levels.She  claims  that  a  standpoint of non-identity which
goes  beyond the dualistic mode of thinkning can be the basis
for  ecofeminist  theory and praxis.In other words we have to
rework  the  historicaly deleted identity with/in nature.Such
an  exercise  she  claims  is  part  and  parcel  of dialetic
analysis    and    this    is    not   another   essentialist
exercise.According  to  the author 'Ecofeminist politics is a
feminism  as  much  as it offers an uncompromising critque of
capitalist    patrirachal    culture    from    a    womanist
perspective;it  is a socialism because it honors the wretched
of   thge  earth,  it  is  ecology  because  it  reintegrates
humanity  with anture, it is a postcolonial discourse because
it focuses on deconstructing Eurocentric domination'.
 
By  taking on the various theortical perspectives she has put
forth         an        ecofeminist        critique        of
Marxism,Postmodernism,liberal  feminism  etc.   As a critique
her   work  is  well  argued  and  ample  examples  from  the
grassroots  res/sisters  and  movements are provided throught
the  book.  But one is afraid that her work does not take her
very  far for she tends to generalise the material conditions
of  reproduction  and  the  reconcilation  between  universal
viewpoint  she  advocates and essentialst assumptions are not
worked  out neatly in this work.Further her epistemology is a
brilliant  critique but does not provide us a solid theory or
framework  to  combine  an historical materialist perspective
with  a  trans  dualistic  understanding  of man-woman-nature
relationship.
 
Perhaps  part  of  the  problem  is with her extensive use of
man/woman=nature   as   the   underppinng  logic  of  western
civilisation.Whether   this   logic   alone   can   be  used,
irrespective  of  the  context and other social conditions as
the  major  cause  to  explain domination of women as well as
nature  is  a  question  that  one  faces  while  reading her
work.Zimmerman   points   out  that  Peggy  Reevs  offers  an
alternative  account  that  challenges  Sherry Ortner's claim
(1).    Morover as Slvia Bowebank has pointed out claiming to
speak  in  the  name of nature or true nature is problematic,
even when such claims are made by women(2).
 
The  term  capitalist partiarchy is used throught the book so
frequently  that  it becomes a cliche.She does not examine in
depth  the  relationship  between  patriarchy and other other
relations  of production/reproduction.  Non-western societies
or   cultures  need  not  be  looked  as  ideals  or  as  the
alternatives  to  western  capitalist patriarchy for they may
susbscribe  to  the  logic  of man/woman=nature in one way or
other.    Throught  the  book  as one comes across uncritical
comments  or  observations  of  various  struggles,indigenous
communities,  and  critics  and some of them are suggested as
alternatives.But  the  issues  are more complex than what the
author  presumes.   For instance she is critical of the usage
of  Geographic  Information  Systems  (GIS) and warns against
its  use by Multinational etc.But as aarticles in an issue of
Cultural  Survival pointed out the indigenous communities are
using   information   gathered   by  using  GIS  as  well  as
traditional  knowledge  to  stake  their claims and fight for
their  rights. Although her critiques of Deep Ecology etc are
well meaning it seems that she fails to notice that both Deep
Ecology  and Ecofeminism need not necessarily be antagnostic.
Recent interviews with Arne Naess (published in Alternatives,
Capitalism,    Nature,    Socialism)   confirm   this.Further
ecofeminsm  and  deep  ecology  despite  different  views the
ecofeminst  project  is  not  inconsistent with goals of deep
ecology.
 
Nothwithstanding  these  observations  this  is a significant
work  and  will  further  the debate between ecofeminists and
others.Her   work   is   an  important  contribution  to  the
Ecofeminist discourse.
 
References:
 
(1)Zimmerman,Michael E  (1994).Contesting   Earth's   Future:
Radical   Ecology  and  Postmodernity.Berkeley,University  of
California Press
 
(2)Bowerbank,Sylvia   (1996).Does  Woman  Speak  For  Nature?
Towards  a  Genealogy  of  Ecological  Feminisms  in  Between
Monsters  Goddesses  and  Cyborgs  (Eds)  Nina  Lykke  , Rosi
Braidotti, Zed Books,London
 
K.Ravi Srinivas
 
(The published version is slightly different from the above text)


Reply via email to