Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ecofeminismo PDF
Ecofeminismo PDF
Abstract
There is emerging global agreement that environmental change is one of the greatest threats to
ecosystems, culture, health, and economies of humankind. In response to these environmental
changes and the expected human vulnerability they will continue to produce, the American Academy
of Social Work and Social Welfare has highlighted intervention to address the human impacts of the
changing climate as one of the profession’s grand challenges. This article troubles the often
anthropocentric worldview from which such responses emerge and proposes a framework
informed by the wisdom of deep ecology and ecofeminism. Born from critical methodologies that
question the rigid bifurcation and valuation of male/female and human/nonhuman, these perspectives
invite social workers to think in novel ways about environmental challenges. We argue that the
social work profession, which has historically sought to disturb power dynamics and reprioritize
society’s needs, is uniquely situated to think holistically about responding to this crisis. By honoring
the interrelated nature of human and nonhumankind, social workers can more mindfully lead the
social planning and advocacy efforts necessary to meet this grand challenge.
Keywords
climate change, deep ecology, ecofeminism, feminist theories, social work practice
Climate change has led to an increase in ever more severe hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, sea level
rise, and drought that have caused large-scale human catastrophe and social dislocation (Alston,
2013; Drolet, 2012; Kemp & Palinkas, 2015). Communities with the least capital and resources
suffer the worst effects from climate change, and social workers will have to address the severe
impact of these developments on human health and well-being (Kemp & Palinkas, 2015; Mason &
Rigg, 2018). While the social work field’s response to climate change typically focuses on topics
such as disaster risk reduction, environmentally displaced populations, and community adaptation
and resilience to environmental change (Kemp, Palinkas, & Mason, 2018), a broader perspective is
1
USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
2
U.S. Air Force, Nellis Air Force Base, NV, USA
Corresponding Author:
Cary L. Klemmer, USC Suzanne Dworack-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, 669 W. 34th St.,
Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA.
Email: cklemmer@usc.edu
2 Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work XX(X)
possible (Bhuyan, Wahab, & Park, 2019). We begin by providing a historical overview, key con-
cepts, and explicit examples of the theories of deep ecology and ecofeminism in social work
practice. Then, we discuss the social work grand challenges and call for greater use of ecofeminist
and deep ecological modes of practice such that we can earnestly address this crisis. Ultimately, this
article argues that social work’s current parochial responses to the climate crisis further the proble-
matic domination of humans over the earth and that a paradigm allowing for the pursuit of deep
social and ecological justice is possible.
Systems theory. In social work, the adaptation and goodness of fit of individuals to their surrounding
ecological systems have predominately been regarded as social address and interaction and not in
relation to natural physical place (Alston, 2013; Ungar, 2002). Ecological theory gained more
prominence in the profession in the 1970s with the integration of systems theory such as that of
family therapist Salvador Minuchin (1974). Systems theory allowed for a more in-depth understand-
ing of the interactions of various systems. As stated by Gitterman and Germain (1976): “Within the
ecological perspective, human beings are conceived as evolving and adapting through transactions
with all elements of their environments . . . they reciprocally shape each other” (p. 602). While these
systems were originally applied to the interactional nature of families alone, the application of
systems theory ideas to the ecological realm allowed for development of Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological systems theory and his corresponding model so important to the social work
profession (Ungar, 2002).
(Besthorn, 2012; Stephens, Jacobson, & King, 2009; Ungar, 2002). Ecofeminism and deep ecology
have applied critical dialectics and expanded social ecological theory to be “deep,” critical, and
spiritual.
Ecofeminism. Ecofeminist thinking arose from movements that critique modernity using historical
and sociopolitical theory (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). Ecofeminism was first identified by fem-
inist thinker Francoise d’Eaubonne (1974) and has since been discussed by numerous feminist
theorists (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Mies & Shiva, 2014; Stephens et al., 2009). The historical
origin of ecofeminist thinking can be partially traced to constructionist theorists such as Michel
Foucault (1965, 1969, 1970, 1980), Martin Heidegger (1961, 1966, 1971), and other postmodernists.
These theoreticians produced the tools of deconstruction, which feminists have used to critically
analyze dominating social discourses around power, privilege, modernity, and accepted notions of
authority and knowledge. Major progenitors of ecofeminist thinking also include Marxist thinkers,
especially that of the Frankfurt school, that offered a critical neo-Marxian perspective (Besthorn &
McMillen, 2002). Ecofeminism ultimately came into being mainly through deconstruction of grand
narratives of oppression seen as rooted in market economies with the combination of natural
ecological theory: “a feminist/ecological dominance theory rooted in the destructive ethos of patri-
archy” (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002, p. 224).
While historically unacknowledged in the literature, ecofeminist thinkers were also deeply influ-
enced by indigenous knowledge (Fox-Smith, 2017; Nixon, 2015). Indigenous worldviews have
acknowledged the interrelated nature of the physical environment and humans for millennia (Billiot,
Beltrán, Brown, Mitchell, & Fernandez, 2019; Fox-Smith, 2017; Nixon, 2015). Billiot and col-
leagues (2019) note the many ways that indigenous communities have been fervent protectors of
the natural world and are now uniquely vulnerable to environmental changes stemming from climate
change. Recent literature highlights the fit between ecofeminism and indigenous ways of knowing
and makes headway in acknowledging the fundamental role of indigenous peoples as caretakers of
the land and holders of essential ecofeminist wisdom (Bhuyan et al., 2019).
Additionally, some spiritualities of antiquity, while not necessarily matriarchal, valued feminin-
ity and the interconnectedness of the individual with the self, others, and the natural environment
(Eisler, 1987; Warren, 2000). For example, social scientist Riane Eisler (1987) describes objects of
fertility discovered in Europe as belonging to an egalitarian goddess-oriented society that was later
overturned by oppressive and dominance-oriented societies. Eisler argues, as do ecofeminists, that a
key to end oppressive systems of dominance of women and nature is rooted in a reemergence of this
form of spirituality. Thus, ecofeminism arose from the application of constructivist thought, indi-
genous knowledge, and femininity-oriented spirituality to an ecological theory seen as too limited.
Deep ecology. The origin of deep ecology has similar roots in critical, postmodern, and Marxist
dialectics. The emergence of deep ecological thinking in social work arose as an alternative critical
voice to ecological theory’s shallow, limited, overly descriptive, and anthropocentric view that is
unable to guide intervention (Ungar, 2002). The philosophy of deep ecology was created by philo-
sopher Arne Naess (1973). One of the key concepts of deep ecological thinking is that ecological
theory and Western society has become alienated from nature and due to false ideas about human-
ity’s place in the order of things (i.e., nature) that we must amend by recognizing our “ecological
Self” which will catalyze an “existential affirmation of our embeddedness in and belonging to the
natural environment” (Diehm, 2014, p. 81). The theoretical origin of this idea is rooted in seminal
philosophical texts on nature and spirituality as well as with the more recent movements of trans-
cendentalism and social political movements for peace and civil rights (Emerson, 1836/2010;
Thoreau, 1854/2011).
4 Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work XX(X)
The transcendental movement of Ralph Waldo Emerson (1836/2010) and Henry David Thoreau
(1854/2011) provided foundational ideas to philosopher Arne Naess’ Deep Ecological Theory
(1973; Besthorn, 2012). In their 19th-century literature, these classic authors described retreat into
the wilderness, and the building of communion with self and the natural environment, as intrinsically
linked. Retreat into wild natural spaces, it is posited in transcendental thought, increases for an
individual the value given to all elements of the environment, both social and physical (Besthorn,
2012). Emerson (1836/2010) advocated a communing with nature such that it “becomes part of
[one’s] daily food” (chapter 1). The ideas of this movement were more humanistic and metaphysical
in nature than academic. Nonetheless, this movement’s ideas co-emerged with Marxist thought that
market-based principles are inherently flawed and diminish the ability of nature-based retreat as
emphasized in the transcendental movement (Besthorn, 2012).
Naess (1995) also explicitly cited Gandhi and his peaceful, nonviolent social protest against
British imperialism as grounds for a deep ecological practice. Naess wrote that Gandhi’s movement
for peace in India did not have as a central aim to liberate the Indian nation. Its aim instead was to
eliminate caste, alleviate poverty, and ultimately to allow for the utmost self-realization of all beings
outside of constructs of nation, state, or religion; paraphrased, Gandhi’s supreme belief was “In
achieving wider self-realization, one must recognize every non-human entity as intimately con-
nected and thus intrinsically valuable” (Besthorn, 2012, p. 251; Naess, 1995). Naess (1973)
described this form of political action as essential to his deep ecological philosophy, which he
hoped would first and foremost become a social and political movement instead of a theory confined
to academia, stating that this movement must flexibly take into account “the vast scope of relevant
ecological and normative (social, political, ethical) material” (p. 100).
The once controversial and exiled Jewish Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1677) offered
perhaps the most important contributions to deep ecological theorizing (Besthorn, 2012; Kober,
2013). In Spinoza’s Ethics, first published in 1677, a pantheistic ideal is elaborated whereby
“nature” and “God” are one and the same; ethicist Gal Kober (2013) reported on Spinoza (1677)
“man is a part of nature, a subject of the same domain—not a domain separate from it, nor a domain
within that of nature” (p. 43). The pantheistic view of divinity expounded by Spinoza was adopted
by Naess to show that all things are divine, interconnected, and possessing of intrinsic value due to
this interconnectedness. Political and social movements for a deep ecology, Naess argues, rely on
one reaching their highest self-realization. He defines this as coming to an understanding that the
body, the mind, and the whole of nature are but one and the same (Besthorn, 2012; Naess, 1989). For
Spinoza, societies that have not reached this realization rationalize the dominion of parts that they do
not see as interrelated: oppression of other humans, of women, and the natural environment (Kober,
2013). This philosophy also demonstrates that humankind, being itself interrelated to nature, harms
the self when harming nature.
(Besthorn, 2012; Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Ungar, 2002). The main constructs of deep ecology
and ecofeminism can be used to right these missteps.
Three central ideas of ecofeminist thought have been solidified by Besthorn and McMillen
(2002). The first is that there is currently an uneven and exploitative power dynamic between
masculinity and femininity that equally mirrors the split between humankind and nature. Similarly,
all things demarcated by humankind fall either within nature or that which is outside and superior to
nature (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). These demarcations are oppressive, are hierarchical, and are
presupposed and unquestioned by all institutions of modernity. From an ecofeminist lens, the “twin
oppressions” (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002, p. 224) of patriarchy and anthropocentrism are con-
joined in their preponderance and could be mutually destroyed. In other words, to dismantle one of
these hierarchical, oppressive structures would lead to equal disability of the other: “issues of
environmental degradation and concerns for a reanimated person/nature consciousness cannot be
separated from all forms of injustice, whether toward nature or other human beings” (Besthorn &
McMillen, 2002, p. 223). This critical perspective that troubles the concept of dominant and passive
sides of a coin leads logically to the question of whether such binaries can and should be eradicated
entirely.
The second construct posits that all forms of domination, either of humans or of nature, are
feminist concerns (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). Ecological critiques are simply incomplete without
an appraisal of unchecked power and the effect of its operation in society (Stephens et al., 2009).
Without social critique of power, underlying misogyny and disdain of nature cannot be unveiled. As
scholar and environmental activist Vandana Shiva (1997) put it, the rise of globalization and
industrialism has ushered in the gendered construction of nature as “passive, inert, and valueless,”
not dissimilar to the characterization of femininity (para. 38). To provide social critique and to
promote positive change is one main aim of the ecofeminist social and political movement. This
objective is closely aligned with the political and social objectives of deep ecology (Besthorn, 2012;
Gray & Coates, 2013; Ungar, 2002).
The third main idea of ecofeminism is that humanity has lost consciousness of the sacred inter-
connectedness of all things (humankind and nonhumankind) due to the institutions of modernity
(Besthorn, 2012; Ungar, 2002). Modernity, which is encapsulated by the ideas of enlightenment
thinking, seeks continued progress as ultimate good. Here, progress is defined as the accumulation of
scientific knowledge (Ferreira, 2010). This view is flawed according to ecofeminists and deep
ecologists who see the accumulation of knowledge through positivism as the continued and increas-
ing dominion of humankind over nature (Besthorn, 2012; Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Stephens
et al., 2009). An objective of ecofeminist thought therefore is to reignite within social consciousness
the idea that the whole of humanity is greater than the sum of its parts. Each of these parts shares a
fundamental interconnectedness, a premise that also categorizes deep ecological thinking (Kober,
2013; Ungar, 2002). It therefore follows that commitment to political and social action is inherently
spiritual, especially in relation to climate change (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Gray & Coates,
2013).
Deep ecology is closely aligned with ecofeminist theorizing and is the study of the mutual
dependency found in all aspects of an ecosystem both social and natural/environmental (Alston,
2013; Diehm, 2014; Jones, 2010; Stephens et al., 2009; Ungar, 2002). Besthorn (2012) explains that,
“rather than individual experience as separate from the environment, [in deep ecological theory] the
environment exists in individuals as they cultivate awareness of being one with all that exists”
(p. 252). Humankind, in their relationship with one another, is the embodiment of nature. Simply
stated, there is an interconnectedness of all things, and the dominant behaviors of society have an
effect on all things, human and nonhuman.
According to Gray and Coates (2013), there has been a shift throughout human history from that
of an ecologically centered philosophy to that of an anthropocentric presumption. The shift from
6 Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work XX(X)
ecocentrism to anthropocentrism facilitates humankind to seek and legitimize dominion over nature.
The reigning dominance of market-based systems and an overreliance on continuous scientific and
economic growth have led to the overconsumption of natural resources and the current environ-
mental crises, especially those problems caused by warming temperatures (Besthorn, 2012; Dom-
inelli, 2011, 2013; Gray & Coates, 2013; Peeters, 2012). Both ecofeminist and deep ecological
theorists posit that we need to change widely held ideology and political and economic structures
that operate on the assumption that a valuable life is one rich in material possession and consumption
(Besthorn & McMillen, 2002; Gray & Coates, 2013; Stephens et al., 2009). Deep ecology’s remedy
to environmental crisis does not include the development of more sustainable technologies that
would allow only for continued domination of the environment (Peeters, 2012). Instead, addressing
climate change will not be possible without radical social change.
Deep ecologists posit that with the interconnectedness of all things, it follows that diversity and
symbiosis are in the best interest of humankind, nonhumankind, and physical place (Alston, 2013;
Ungar, 2002). The more complex and diverse an ecosystem may be, the less likely it is that it will be
destroyed. Naess shows this proposition mathematically; the arrangement of three single-digit
numbers can produce only six unique arrangements of numbers; the arrangement of four single-
digit numbers can produce 24 unique arrangements (Ungar, 2002, p. 486). A deep ecological view
thus suggests that human social ecology, when in symbiosis with a diverse natural ecology, is dually
protected and strong. The political and social crusade of deep ecology is therefore to revive a once-
vital consciousness on the importance of diverse human and natural ecosystems and to replace it
with the currently reigning modern market-based principles of consumption (Alston, 2013). In sum,
this movement advocates a shift in the social work field from fitting in with modernity by way of
unquestioningly embracing analytic, scientific rationality to a more social justice–aligned approach
in which environmental sustainability is viewed through an inclusive and holistic paradigm that
centers indigenous perspectives and land and community stewardship (Bhuyan et al., 2019; Billiot
et al., 2019; Ferreira, 2010).
Ultimately, such a manifesto calls on practitioners to view all entities, both human and nonhuman
with a stance of equanimity, to ensure that a diversity of resources are channeled to communities so
that they may “help them help themselves” (Besthorn, 2012; Gray & Coates, 2013), and to guide
human service organizations to achieve these aims by remaining small, and seeking guidance from
community stakeholders rather than boards or bureaucracies (Ungar, 2002). Finally, in practice,
social workers must advocate for policies that situate the well-being of communities as the bench-
mark of social and economic developmental processes (Ungar, 2002).
The many ways in which these principles have been operationalized by social workers to meet the
need of environmental crisis include educating on the issues associated with environmental degra-
dation, promoting sustainable energy production and consumption, and mobilizing communities to
protect their futures through local social work focusing on environmental problem-solving (Dom-
inelli, 2011). Many examples of ecofeminist and deep ecological social work practices exist and
include supporting prison abolitionists’ fight to decriminalize Indigenous and environmental protest;
supporting youth environmental leaders globally, such as climate activist Greta Thunberg (2019);
working in solidarity with undocumented farm workers; and advocating for comprehensive immi-
gration reform and immigrant labor rights in order to green our food systems (Bhuyan et al., 2019,
pp. 292–293).
Social workers at the microlevel and mezzolevel provide psychoeducation to ensure that groups
and organizations understand environmental problems so that global-level knowledge can affect
local action. Furthermore, on the macrolevel, social workers can bring people together to defend
international policy such as the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCC, 1997). As stated by Dominelli (2011)
“Social workers, with their skills in seeing the whole picture and mediating between conflicting
groups, can facilitate implementation discussions at international policy and community levels” (p.
434). In all, these interventions are led by workers not bound within the confines of an agency but
bring the decision-making process out of the bureaucratic boardroom and into the spiritual and
communal spaces of those being serviced (Ungar, 2002).
Social worker Julie Drolet (2012) recounts an ecofeminist intervention whereby community-
based participatory action research was used in British Columbia, Canada, to inform and guide
potential interventions. The community-based participatory action research process lead to identi-
fication of desired interventions and needed policy advocacy. It was found that issues of environ-
mental degradation and change were significant concerns of local community research participants
and that local and national government action on these issues was desired. This intervention led to an
identification of the problem as understood by the community as well as their desired changes,
namely, advocating for further development of community-managed food gardens, and more auton-
omy in managing and identifying the use of natural ecological resources that were central to local
economies (Drolet, 2012). Ecofeminist intervention develops agency, allows for reflection, and
promotes community action (Drolet, 2012).
In another example, social worker Michael Ungar (2018) synthesized the literature on resilience,
pointing out that research in this area has traditionally been anthropocentric. He highlights the
adaptive and resilient ways in which plant and animal regimes have survived human-made distur-
bances and underscores the capacity-building possibilities that present themselves in the face of
adversity (Ungar, 2018). Such a perspective, which acknowledges connections between human and
nonhuman elements in a community and earnestly weighs trade-offs present in an adversity–resi-
liency process, would be beneficial to the social work profession as it addresses this grand challenge.
Ecofeminist and deep ecological interventions take into account the subjectivities of those
affected by climate change and create space for communities to learn and dialogue on both envi-
ronment and other social issues that are believed to be interconnected; a social problem does not
arise without equal problem in the natural ecological realm (Alston, 2013; Drolet, 2012). Jones
(2010) highlights interventions of this nature that utilize experiential learning related to issues of
8 Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work XX(X)
environmental exploitation and destruction. Jones recommends taking clients and students of social
work to community gardens, degraded waterways, waste management facilities, and natural ecolo-
gical rejuvenation sites. These experiences prompt intervention participants to question their poten-
tially limited knowledge of ecological environmental issues and their underdeveloped frameworks
to question and solve problems of social and natural ecological dimension.
In concurrence with these methods, indigenous scholars have recently provided examples of
social work that incorporates place-based teaching. Billiot and colleagues (2019) share on their
work to teach social work students through embodied learning about the sand creek massacre in the
state of Colorado. In their example of this type of teaching, explicit connection-making between
historical violence perpetrated in part by important figures in the student’s academic community was
made, and a site visit was utilized to promote a deep ecological perspective for students who
illustrated their interconnectedness with their environment and its history. These scholars also give
an example of mental health interventions that engage with the natural environment: The Yappallı́
Choctaw Road to Health intervention uses a place-based, outdoor mode of communal and individual
healing for women of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (Billiot et al., 2019). These are but two
examples on how social work practitioners, researchers, and administrators can incorporate place-
based, historically aware educational classes and health interventions using these paradigms.
Deep ecological and ecofeminist interventions promote communities’ ability to enjoy one
another and nature. Naess (1989) argues “We need types of societies and communities in which
one delights in the value-creative aspects of equilibrium rather than the glorification of value-neutral
growth; in which being together with other living beings is more important than exploiting them”
(p. 24). Deep ecological and ecofeminist interventions attempt to bring individuals, families, and
communities together outside of the realm of enjoyment as demarcated by market-based economy.
These interventions teach individuals and communities to enjoy one another, to be in and revel in
natural spaces, and to observe and create art and music (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). This occurs
simultaneously in communities while advocacy ensures that socially marginalized groups receive
adequate resources to engage in these types of activities; market-based economies have disenfran-
chised many from accessing these types of value-driven lifestyles (Peeters, 2012).
Interventions such as those described here are supported by critical methodologies such as educator
Paulo Freire’s (2000) perspective-shifting take on the ways in which educator, student, and environment
are defined. Freire (2000) states “The oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surround-
ing it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the creations of people, people
themselves, time—everything is reduced to the status of objects at its disposal” (p. 11). Proposing to shift
this framework, Freire (2000) advocates for humans to become aware of their “incompletion” (p. 29) and
to actively reject the process of valuation, domination, and oppression. The social work profession
would do well to similarly be aware of its “incompletion” as it works toward achieving justice for
humans, all sentient creatures, and the nonsentient material of the planet alike.
with which they have been socialized, not only in the profession but also in the society as well.
Having been steeped in an anthropocentric worldview, social workers understandably focus their
skills on addressing existential crises facing their clients, patients, and community members. Simi-
larly, when faced with environmental crises, we understandably tend to situate our responses from an
anthropocentric stance.
The American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare hopes to foster, highlight, and
proliferate the social work profession through advancements in science-informed programming,
and to estblish the social work profession as an integrative scientific profession (Barth, Gilmore,
Flynn, Fraser, & Brekke, 2014; Brekke, 2014). To what extent can the eco-spiritual frameworks
make claim that they are indeed scientifically based and thus be centered in this movement? At this
point, literature on the deep ecological and ecofeminist movements in social work is indeed theore-
tical, conceptual, and, at times, strongly anti-positivist (Besthorn & McMillen, 2002). The deep
ecological and ecofeminist movement has made explicit a disdain for a reliance on existing methods
of scientific inquiry, which are in part believed to be the cause of current environmental crisis.
Thus, it may seem that ecofeminist and deep ecological practice is an uneasy fit with current
trends to operationalize social work based in scientific evidence. However, ecofeminist and deep
ecological tenants and practices can be aligned with traditional paradigms to broaden the impact of
scientific inquiry and to develop evidence-based practices attentive to social and ecological justice.
For example, scholar Deboleena Roy (2008) offers a “feminist practice of research agenda choice”
(p. 154, emphasis in original) which does not seek to dismantle typical scientific inquiry “but rather
to provide the feminist scientist with the necessary tools to produce interruptions or positive dis-
ruptions in the processes of scientific knowledge making” (p. 154). Thus, through centering ecofe-
minist ethics as a starting point in social work research and intervention, the ecological spiritual
movement and its ideas can be applied to existing modalities of professional practice.
workers to fulfill their role as agents of social and environmental justice” (Gray & Coates, 2013,
p. 356; Jones, 2010). To question societal structures such as economic models, values, and ways of life
is critical as we embark into deeper social justice (Rambaree, Powers, & Smith, 2019). This con-
sciousness is essential if social workers hope to make lasting social change, especially in the face of an
environmental crisis that promises to be a challenge to all things on the planet, human and nonhuman.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Cary L. Klemmer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1591-8239
References
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24,
347–364. doi:10.1191/030913200701540465
Alston, M. (2013). Environmental social work: Accounting for gender in climate disasters. Australian Social
Work, 66, 218–233. doi:10.1080/0312407X.2012.738366
Klemmer and McNamara 11
Barth, R. P., Gilmore, G. C., Flynn, M. S., Fraser, M. W., & Brekke, J. S. (2014). The American academy of
social work and social welfare: History and grand challenges. Research on Social Work Practice, 24,
495–500. doi:10.1177/1049731514527801
Besthorn, F. H. (2012). Deep ecology’s contributions to social work: A ten-year retrospective. International
Journal of Social Welfare, 21, 248–259. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00850.x
Besthorn, F. H., & McMillen, D. P. (2002). The oppression of women and nature: Ecofeminism as a framework
for an expanded ecological social work. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services,
83, 221–232.
Bhuyan, R., Wahab, S., & Park, Y. (2019). A green new deal for social work. Affilia, 34, 289–294. doi:10.1177/
0886109919861700
Billiot, S., Beltrán, R., Brown, D., Mitchell, F. M., & Fernandez, A. (2019). Indigenous perspectives for
strengthening social responses to global environmental changes: A response to the social work grand
challenge on environmental change. Journal of Community Practice. doi:10.1080/10705422.2019.1658677
Brekke, J. S. (2014). A science of social work, and social work as an integrative scientific discipline: Have we
gone too far, or not far enough? Research on Social Work Practice, 24, 517–523. doi:10.1177/
1049731513511994
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard
University Press.
d’Eaubonne, F. (1974). Le féminisme ou la mort. Horay.
Diehm, C. (2014). Darwin and deep ecology. Ethics & the Environment, 19, 73–93.
Dominelli, L. (2011). Climate change: Social workers’ roles and contributions to policy debates and interven-
tions. International Journal of Social Welfare, 20, 430–438. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00795.x
Dominelli, L. (2013). Environmental justice at the heart of social work practice: Greening the profession.
International Journal of Social Welfare, 22, 431–439. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12024
Drolet, J. (2012). Climate change, food security, and sustainable development: A study on community-based
responses and adaptations in British Columbia, Canada. Community Development, 3, 630–644. doi:10.1080/
15575330.2012.729412
Eisler, R. (1987). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future (1st ed.). Harper & Row.
Emerson, R. W. (2010). Nature. American Renaissance Books. (Original work published 1836)
Ferreira, S. B. (2010). Eco-spiritual social work as a precondition for social development. Ethics and Social
Welfare, 4, 3–23. doi:10.1080/17496531003607891
Foucault, M. (1965). Madness and civilization: A history of insanity in the age of reason (R. Howard, Trans.).
Harper & Row.
Foucault, M. (1969). The archaeology of knowledge (A. Smith, Trans.). Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality, Volume I. An introduction. Vintage Books.
Fox-Smith, T. (2017, March). A woman’s place in the displacement: Ecofeminism, indigenous knowledge
systems, and statelessness. Retrieved from https://centreforfeministforeignpolicy.org/journal/2017/3/15/a-
womans-place-in-the-displacement-ecofeminism-indigenous-knowledge-systems-and-statelessness
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Germain, C. (1987). Human development in contemporary environments. Social Service Review, 61, 565–580.
doi:10.1086/644478
Germain, C. (1994). Emerging conceptions of family development over the life course. Families in Society, 75,
259. doi:10.1177/104438949407500501
Gitterman, A., & Germain, C. (1976). Social work practice: A life model. Social Service Review, 50, 601–610.
doi:10.1086/643430
Gray, M., & Coates, J. (2013). Changing values and valuing change: Toward an ecospiritual perspective in
social work. International Social Work, 56, 356–368. doi:10.1177/0020872812474009
12 Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work XX(X)
Author Biographies
Cary L. Klemmer (He/They) is a social worker living in Chicago, IL, the traditional homeland of the people of
the Council of Three Fires, the Ojibwe, Potawatomi, and Odawa. Cary is currently completing his dissertation
for a PhD in social work on the school-based experiences of transgender young people. Through social work
scholarship, teaching and practice, Cary hopes to promote a world that affirms human gender and sexuality
diversity, and that strives toward social and ecological justice.
Kathleen A. McNamara serves as the Behavioral Health Consultant to primary care physicians at Nellis Air
Force Base, Nevada. Her research primarily explores the well-being, “outness,” and integration of sexual and
gender minority active duty service members.