CHAPTER-1

A BRIEF DISCUSSION
OF ECOFEMINISM
 CHAPTER-1

A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF ECOFEMINISM

We begin this chapter with a brief discussion of ecofeminism. We started with

an introduction of ecofeminism, then we have given a brief account of the connection

between women and nature, followed by analysis of the viewpoints offered by some

ecofeminists. These analyses reveal the cause behind the domination of both women

and nature. We have also tried to show that ecofeminism not only includes women’s

problem but also environmental problems as well. In 1974, French feminist, Francoise

d’Eaubonne introduced the term ‘ecoféminisme’ (ecofeminism) in Le Féminisme ou

la Mort (Feminism or Death).

Ecofeminism recognizes that there is a connection between the domination of

women and the destruction of nature. The goal of feminist movement is to bring an

end the domination of women. And the goal of ecological movement is to end the

destruction and exploitation of nature. The convergence of feminist movement and

ecology movement resulted in the emergence of a movement called ecological

feminism or ecofeminism, the goal of which is based on the construction of a society

that does not promote the domination of women and the destruction of nature.

Karen J. Warren (1993a) mentioned that there are eight kinds of connection

that exists between women and nature. Karen J. Warren stated that these connections

provide an examination of the kinds of the domination of both women and nature.

These connections between women and nature are historical, conceptual, empirical,

symbolical, etymological, political, ethical and lastly, theoretical. Karen J. Warren

6
maintains that in tracing the origin of the domination of both women and nature, some

ecofeminists focus on the historical connections which began with the Indo-European

invasion, according to some others, in the rationalist tradition and in the classical

Greek philosophy, while some trace it during the sixteenth and seventeenth century

scientific revolution. Some ecofeminists claim that the domination of both women and

nature is rooted in conceptual connections. In the words of Karen J. Warren, “A

conceptual framework is a socially constructed set of basic beliefs, values, attitudes

and assumptions that shape and reflect how one views oneself and others.”1

According to Karen J. Warren (1994), a ‘conceptual framework’ is ‘oppressive’ when

it maintains relations of subordination and dominance. Karen J. Warren mentioned

that a ‘patriarchal conceptual framework’ is ‘oppressive’ when it maintains and

justifies male subordination of female.

Karen J. Warren (1994) stated that the five characteristics of an ‘oppressive’

and ‘patriarchal conceptual framework’ includes (i) ‘value-hierarchical(“Up-

Down”) thinking’ which places higher value to the ‘Up’ as for example, ‘men’ than to

the ‘Down’ as for example, ‘women’; (ii) ‘value dualisms (“either-or” thinking)’

consists of disjunctive pairs, which places higher value on one member of the pair.

The examples of the ‘value-hierarchical thinking’ and ‘value dualisms’ includes

reason/emotion, mind/body, man/woman etc. Here, higher value is given to ‘reason’,

‘mind’, ‘man’, whereas ‘emotion’, ‘body’, ‘woman’ are treated as inferior. Other

characteristics include (iii) ‘power-over conceptions of power’ which maintains

relations of domination and control and (iv) ‘conceptions of privilege’ which privilege

‘Ups’ or which is higher in ‘Up-Down’ relationships, and the last characteristic is (v)

1
Warren, Karen J. (1993a): Introduction, in Environmental Philosophy, From Animal Rights to
Radical Ecology, Michael E. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, p. 257.

7
‘a logic of domination’ where the logical structure of argument justifies the

relationships of domination based on the justification that the one who is superior

subordinates the other who is inferior. Karen J. Warren (1993a) stated that this

‘oppressive conceptual framework’ not only sanctions the domination of both women

and nature but is also the cause of all ‘isms of domination’ that is, sexism, racism,

classism etc.

Karen J. Warren (1993a) asserts that some ecofeminists emphasize on the

empirical connections between the domination of women and the destruction of

nature, whereas on the other hand, some ecofeminists focus on the symbolic

connections between women and nature in religion, art, literature and theology which

devalues both women and nature. According to Karen J. Warren, other ecofeminists

claim that the connection between women and nature is epistemological. The

mainstream views of reason, rationality, knowledge and the nature of the knower were

challenged by the ecofeminists. Val Plumwood (1993) considers ecofeminist

epistemologies must critic rationalism in the Western philosophical tradition. There is

need to develop revised views of the ethical and knowing self which transcends value

dualism and hierarchies.

Karen J. Warren (1993a) stated that other ecofeminists focus on political

connections between women and nature by taking into account grassroots activity and

political concerns which includes the systems of domination and subordination.

Warren said that some other ecofeminists emphasize on the ethical connections

between women and nature by developing theories that are not male-biased for both

humans and nature. According to Warren, some ecofeminists focus on the theoretical

connections between women and nature. On the basis of the above mentioned seven

8
connections a theoretical position in linking areas of feminist and environmental

philosophy is emerging.

Thus, we find that these different types of connections between women and

nature are important for ecofeminism because these connections not only reveal

women’s closeness to nature but also disclose the treatment of both women and nature

in society. Women and nature are related because both of them are mothers. Not only

in Western culture, but also in Indian culture nature is identified as female.

We are now going to discuss the views of ecofeminists. The analyses of these

views show us how both women and nature are subjugated and dominated by men.

Carolyn Merchant (1982) considers that the emergence of scientific revolution

during the sixteenth and seventeenth century sanctioned the domination of both

women and nature. Carolyn Merchant stated that in ancient time the nature that is, the

earth was viewed as a living being and was identified with a ‘nurturing mother’. In

this organic view, the image of the earth as a ‘nurturing mother’ restricts the

destructive actions of human beings towards nature and allows human beings to

respect earth. Another image of nature contrary to the first image also existed. The

second image of nature as violent and disorderly was also identified with the female.

This image of nature as chaotic sanctioned the power and mastery over nature.

Merchant stated that after scientific revolution the nature was viewed as ‘inert’ and

dead. The rise and the development of mechanism during the sixteenth and

seventeenth century gave men power to control and dominate both women and nature.

In this mechanical view, the female image of nature was viewed as a resource to be

subjugated and controlled. The rise and the development of mechanism sanctioned the

exploitation of both women and nature. Thus, we see that according to Carolyn

9
Merchant, scientific revolution sanctioned the subordination of women and the

exploitation of nature.

Vandana Shiva (1988) upholds that modern science and development as

Western ‘patriarchal projects’ is responsible for the subjugation of women and the

destruction of nature. During the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe, the

scientific revolution and the industrial revolution occurred. Shiva maintains that the

emergence of modern science, technology and economic development rooted in

patriarchy converted nature from ‘Prakriti’, the ‘living force’ into a machine and as a

resource for economic exploitation which sanctioned the denigration of nature and are

responsible for current ecological crisis. According to Shiva, ‘western patriarchy’ is

the source of the domination of both women and nature. Women’s dependency on

nature for their livelihood linked them with nature. So, the destruction of nature is a

threat to their survival. For this reason, women led ecological struggles not only to

protect nature from destruction but also to restore nature. Shiva maintains that in

Indian cosmological view, nature that is, the ‘Prakriti’ is the feminine principle that

supports and sustains all life. In the words of Vandana Shiva, “As an embodiment and

manifestation of the feminine principle it is characterized by (a) creativity, activity,

productivity; (b) diversity in form and aspect; (c) connectedness and inter-relationship

of all beings, including man; (d) continuity between the human and natural; and (e)

sanctity of life in nature.”2 Vandana Shiva (1988) stated that there is an ‘intimate’

relationship between women and nature because the work of both is to sustain life.

With the rise of modern science rooted in patriarchy viewed nature as “(a) inert and

passive; (b) uniform and mechanistic; (c) separable and fragmented within itself; (d)

2
Shiva, Vandana (1988): Staying Alive, Women, Ecology and Survival in India, Kali For Women,
New Delhi, Zed Books Ltd., London, p. 40.

10
separate from man; and (e) inferior, to be dominated and exploited by man.”3 Shiva

(1988) mentioned that this transformation of nature from living ‘Prakriti’ to a

resource resulted in the devaluation, subjugation and domination of both women and

nature. Thus, we see that according to Vandana Shiva, Western patriarchy is the cause

of the domination of both women and nature.

Val Plumwood (1993) maintains that the Western ‘rationalist tradition’ is the

source of the domination of both women and nature. The Western ‘rationalism’

acknowledges the ‘dualisms’ which is the cause of the domination of both women and

nature. In the words of Val Plumwood, “A dualistically construed dichotomy typically

polarizes difference and minimizes shared characteristics, construes difference along

lines of superiority/ inferiority, and views the inferior side as a means to the higher

ends of the superior side (the instrumental thesis).”4 According to Plumwood (1993)

the examples of such dualisms include human/nature, reason/nature, mind/body,

reason/emotion, masculine/feminine etc. These ‘dualisms’ consists of two terms

opposed to each other. The terms on the left are associated with masculinity and the

terms on the right are associated with feminity. A higher value or prestige is attributed

to the terms on the left. And as a result, the terms on the left are superior and the

terms on the right are inferior. The inferior sphere is a means to the ends of the

superior sphere. The human/nature dualism is central in the rationalist culture. As for

example, in reason/emotion dualism, masculinity is identified with the sphere of

reason and feminity is identified with the sphere of emotion. The sphere of reason is

the superior sphere and the sphere of emotion is the inferior sphere. The superior

sphere is contrasted with the inferior sphere. The inferior sphere is the excluded

3
Ibid., pp. 40-41.
4
Plumwood, Val (1993): Nature, Self and Gender, Feminism, Environmental Philosophy, and the
Critique of Rationalism, in Environmental Philosophy, From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology,
Michael E. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 298.

11
sphere. The inferior sphere is a means to the ends of the superior sphere. Thus, we see

that according to Val Plumwood, in the Western culture the dualistic framework

sanctioned the domination of both women and nature and separates men from both

women and nature.

Karen J. Warren (1993b), on the other hand, considers that the oppressive

conceptual structure sanctioned the domination of both women and nature. According

to Karen J. Warren, an ‘oppressive conceptual framework’ consists of three important

features. Among them the most important feature is the ‘logic of domination’ which is

the source of the domination of both women and nature. In the words of Karen J.

Warren, a ‘logic of domination’ “involves a substantive value system, since an ethical

premise is needed to permit or sanction the “just” subordination of that which is

subordinate.”5 According to Karen J. Warren, this subordination is on the ground that

the subordinate or the inferior group lacks some characteristics or qualities that the

dominant or the superior group have. An example of such an argument given by

Karen J. Warren is as follows,

“(A1) Humans do, and plants and rocks do not, have the capacity to consciously

and radically change the community in which they live.

(A2) Whatever has the capacity to consciously and radically change the

community in which it lives is morally superior to whatever lacks this

capacity.

(A3) Thus, humans are morally superior to plants and rocks.

(A4) For any X and Y, if X is morally superior to Y, then X is morally justified

in subordinating Y.
5
Warren, Karen. J. (1993b): The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism, in Environmental
Philosophy, From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, Michael E. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Prentice-
Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 322.

12
 (A5) Thus, humans are morally justified in subordinating plants and rocks.”6

According to Warren (1993b), the argument A1-A5 is an example of an ‘oppressive

conceptual framework’. The premise (A4) which signifies ‘a logic of domination’

together with the premise (A2) which signifies ‘value-hierarchical thinking’ and the

premise (A1) which signifies ‘value dualisms’ justifies the subordination of nature by

humans. In the words of Karen J. Warren, “Even if humans are “better” than plants

and rocks with respect to the conscious ability of humans to radically transform

communities, one does not thereby get any morally relevant distinction between

humans and nonhumans, or an argument for the domination of plants and rocks by

humans.”7

Karen J. Warren (1993b) maintains that to get this ‘morally’ relevant

difference between humans and nonhumans two important premises that is, “humans

are morally superior to (atleast some) nonhumans, (A2), and that superiority justifies

subordination, (A4)”8 are included in the argument A. According to Warren, this

‘oppressive conceptual framework’ is ‘patriarchal’ when it maintains and justifies the

domination of both women and nature. According to Karen J. Warren, an example of

such an argument is as follows,

“(B1) Women are identified with nature and the realm of the physical; men are

identified with the “human” and the realm of the mental.

(B2) Whatever is identified with nature and the realm of the physical is inferior

to (“below”) whatever is identified with the “human” and the realm of the

mental; or, conversely, the latter is superior to (“above”) the former.

6
Ibid., p. 323.
7
Ibid., p. 323.
8
Ibid., p. 323.

13
 (B3) Thus, women are inferior to (“below”) men; or, conversely, men are

superior to (“above”) women.

(B4) For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, then X is justified in

subordinating Y.

(B5) Thus, men are justified in subordinating women.”9

According to Karen J. Warren (1993b), the argument B1-B5 is an example of an

‘oppressive’ and ‘patriarchal’ conceptual framework’. The conclusion (B5)

establishes the domination of both women and nature by men. The premise (B4)

which signifies ‘a logic of domination’ together with the premise (B2) which signifies

‘value-hierarchical thinking’ and the premise (B1) which signifies ‘value dualisms’

justifies the domination of both women and nature. Warren stated that this

‘oppressive’ and ‘patriarchal conceptual framework’ inferiorized women by putting

them “down” and this resulted in the domination of women by men. Here, we see that

this conceptual structure inferiorized both women and nature by putting them ‘below’

men and this reinforces the domination of both women and nature by men. Thus, we

see that according to Karen J. Warren, a conceptual structure sanctions the domination

of both women and nature. Hence, we find that the domination of nature by humans

in the argument A, and the domination of women by men in the argument B clearly

shows that there is a link between the domination of women and the domination of

nature. Hence, the goal of ecological feminism or ecofeminism is to eradicate the

patriarchal structure from the society that justifies the domination of both women and

nature.

9
Ibid., p. 324.

14
 In the conclusion, we can say that all the ecofeminists mentioned here

maintains that patriarchy is the cause of the domination of both women and nature.

We find that both women and nature are inferiorized, dominated and devalued in

patriarchal society. So, in analysing the views offered by ecofeminists, we find that

the roots of our current ecological crisis lies in the separation of men from both

women and nature. Since, women are identified with nature, their closeness to nature

sanctions the exploitation of both women and nature by men. To resist the subjugation

of women and the exploitation of nature, the patriarchal structure needs to be

eliminated from the society. In the next chapter we will discuss the relation between

environmental ethics and ecofeminism.



15