THE STRENGTHS AND THE LIMITATIONS OF ECOFEMINISM

Ecofeminism is a very powerful and radical philosophy, because it weds ecology and feminism. It attempts in its praxis to understand and challenge the current dominant patriarchal mind set, so destructive to all life. This is a major strength. On the other hand the term “ecofeminism” may be a limitation, preventing the philosophy from finding acceptance within the wider community. Mainstream society has never warmed to the ecology movement, as it is seen as anti-development and anti-jobs, an attitude, which has been largely pushed by business, politicians and the media. The feminist movement, which has achieved a lot for women’s liberation, is also tainted with the radicalism of the “bra-burning” feminists of the 70’s.

An immense strength of ecofeminism is its unity in diversity. Ecofeminist scholars bring their unique backgrounds from as diverse philosophies such as social ecology, deep ecology, feminism, science, animal liberation, grassroots politics and earth-centred spiritualities. What unites them all is the commitment to investigate “the causes of ‘the environmental crisis’ in particular, the causes of domination and control that encourage the exploitation and degradation of the natural world”(Hallan). This diversity expressed in different view- points paradoxically gives it huge strength, because conflict allows for growth, just like a living, breathing organism, which maintains a dynamic tension in order to develop and evolve.

A major limitation of explicit ecofeminism is that it is not made available to a wider audience of readers, because much of the texts (eg. Val Plumwood), is written in very academic language, usually only understandable to a very small exclusive circles of academic audiences. If we are to see a major paradigm shift in the way we currently view the world, we will need the wisdom, knowledge and experience of ecofeminism communicated to a much larger audience.

Sadly, a number of ecofeminists like Marti Kheel strongly attack deep ecologists, claiming that deep ecology was created by a group of men, who believe that the root cause of the environmental crisis lies with anthropocentrism, whereas ecofeminists claims the root cause to be androcentrism. Ecofeminists argue that the oppression and exploitation of women and nature are intrinsically linked and mutually reinforcing. Because some deep ecologists have failed to make this connection, many ecofeminists have rejected deep ecology altogether. Such a rift between large sectors of the ecofeminist movement and deep ecology does not help to strengthen its cause. Patsy Hallan adds strength for the healing between ecofeminists and deep ecologists when she says that, “In order to educate for environmental responsibility, we need the lessons from Deep Ecology: nature is not a commodity, human are not the centre of the universe, our true nature is ecological. In order to educate for environmental responsibility, we need the lessons from ecofeminism: the sensitivity to gender, the ability to hear women’s voices, the value of care, receptivity and nurturing”.

Several men I have spoken to recently, who are deeply critical of patriarchy, feel marginalised and excluded by the “feminism” of ecofeminism. I think that our culture has made the terrible mistake to see male and female as two opposing forces (eg. the battle of the sexes), rather then viewing male and female as complementary within a dialectical unity. Some men also feel that ecofeminism demonises the male, blaming them exclusively for all the problems in the world.

I think that if ecofeminists wants to succeed in healing the curse of dichotomising the world, they will need to address their own issues of loving their own inner male, and loving the hurts in the world into wholeness. By criticising and rejecting (which is different to critique) that which is wounded, only adds more salt to the wound. A big ask but essential. Many ecofeminists tend to solely blame men, rather than a patriarchal world-view for the oppression and exploitation of women and nature. They fail to explore the ways in which women participate in maintaining the status quo. It is only through a balanced and reciprocal equality for both masculine and feminine, will we engage our full potential as human beings.

Ecofeminism seems largely dominated by educated, middle-class, western women. What would ecofeminism look like if it had grown out of the Third World? Having said that, Vandana Shiva, who speaks powerfully from the perspective of a woman of the Third World, says that, “Third World women are bringing the concern with living survival back to centre-stage in human history…. they are laying the foundations for the recovery of the feminine principle in nature and society, and through it the recovery of the earth as sustainer and provider”. I think that more voices from Third World women would add more strength to ecofeminism.

A vital strength of ecofeminism is its inquiry not only into the oppression and exploitation of women and nature, but also that of class and gender, as they are all linked in the struggle against an oppressive and dominant patriarchal system. Ecofeminism has made a huge contribution in its analysis of an ailing and dysfunctional culture, and its commitment to re-awaken our kinship with each other and our more-than-human relatives.