CHAPTER-2

THE RELATION BETWEEN

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
AND ECOFEMINISM
 CHAPTER-2

THE RELATION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL

ETHICS AND ECOFEMINISM

In this chapter we will study carefully the relation between environmental

ethics and ecofeminism. Here, we will explore the connection between Gaia

Hypothesis and ecofeminism, deep ecology and ecofeminism, social ecology and

ecofeminism and lastly, sustainable development and ecofeminism.

According to Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘environment’

means “the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or

operates.” The word ‘environment’ has its root in the old French term ‘environner’ or

‘environ’ meaning ‘to surround’ or ‘to encircle’. Environmental ethics is a discipline

that studies the ethical relationship of human beings with the natural world and also

deals with the intrinsic value in nature. According to Concise Oxford English

Dictionary, the word ‘ecology’ is “the branch of biology concerned with the relations

of organisms to one another and to their physical surroundings.” The word ‘ecology’

is derived from the Greek word ‘oikos’ which means ‘house’. The word ‘ecology’ was

coined by German biologist, Ernst Haeckel in the 1870s. The word ‘feminism’ on the

other hand, is derived from the French word ‘féminisme’. According to Concise

Oxford English Dictionary, the word ‘feminism’ means “the advocacy of women’s

rights on the grounds of sexual equality.”

Ecofeminism or ecological feminism is a combination of feminism and

ecology that acknowledges that there is an interconnection between the domination of

17
women and the denigration of nature. Both feminism and ecofeminism is not only a

women’s movement but is also a social movement. Ecofeminists maintain that it is

not only amoral to dominate and oppress women but it is also unprincipled to destroy

natural resources for one’s benefit. Hence, ecofeminists are concerned with the

worthiness of all life on earth. According to ecofeminists, patriarchy or androcentrism

is the cause of the domination of both women and nature. Thus, we see that

ecofeminists are not only trying to establish the rights and status of women but also

focuses on the ethical treatment of human beings towards nature. The aim of

ecofeminists is to eradicate the patriarchal structures from the society which is

responsible for the domination of both women and nature.

2.1 Gaia Hypothesis and Ecofeminism

In ecofeminism, the ‘Mother Earth’ representation of nature is important. The

earth is embodied as a female because both of them are mothers. Since, they bring

forth life so this creative power of both women and nature is celebrated by

ecofeminists. Hence, here, retrieval and reinvocation of the Mother Earth

representation of Gaia is necessary to give homage to our Mother Earth.

The name ‘Gaia’ or ‘Ge’ refers to the ancient Greek Goddess of the Earth.

The Gaia Hypothesis was formulated by British scientist James Lovelock and

American biologist Lynn Margulis.

James Lovelock (1979) stated that as a consultant for NASA (National

Aeronautics and Space Administration of the USA), he visited the Jet Propulsion

Laboratories of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena to discover the

18
existence of life on Mars in the 1960s. To explore the existence of life on Mars, James

Lovelock together with Dian Hitchcock, a philosopher, investigated the composition

of the Earth’s atmosphere and found that the Earth’s atmosphere with the composition

of various gasses  oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, methane etc. supports life on Earth.

Lovelock stated that the atmosphere of Mars constituted mostly of carbondioxide and

had no such atmosphere like the Earth. So, Lovelock concluded the absence of life on

the planet Mars. Lovelock focused on the nature of the Earth’s atmosphere and

formulated the hypothesis that “the entire range of living matter on Earth, from

whales to viruses, and from oaks to algae, could be regarded as constituting a single

living entity, capable of manipulating the Earth’s atmosphere to suit its overall needs

and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent parts.”1

The novelist, William Golding suggested the name ‘Gaia’ for Lovelock’s hypothesis

after the Greek Goddess of the Earth. In the 1970s James Lovelock in collaboration

with Lynn Margulis improved his hypothesis by defining Gaia “as a complex entity

involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting

a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical

environment for life on this planet. The maintenance of relatively constant conditions

by active control may be conveniently described by the term ‘homoeostatis’.”2

According to Lovelock (1990), this relative constant condition is maintained

by the feedback system operated by the biota or the living organisms. Lovelock

mentioned that the biota or the living organisms and the biosphere that is, a region of

the Earth where living entities live are part of Gaia. Lovelock also mentioned that the

oceans, the rocks and the air are part of Gaia like the shell of a snail. Thus, in the

1
Lovelock, James (1979): Gaia, A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 9.
2
Ibid., p.11.

19
words of Lovelock, “Gaia, as a total planetary being, has properties that are not

necessarily discernible by just knowing individual species or populations of

organisms living together.”3 Thus, we see that according to Lovelock, the whole earth

is alive and human beings are a part of the earth as a whole.

Lovelock (1979) stated that though there are chances that our use of

technology would lead to destructive and painful end for our own species which may

as a consequence endanger the life Gaia as a whole seems to be quite weak. Though it

is possible that industrial development have to compromise with the life of Gaia but it

need not be total destruction. However, this changed state of Gaia need not be

congenial to the survival of human beings. Whereas, according to Lovelock, the

activities of men threatens the survival of all life on earth. Here, we see that according

to Lovelock, patriarchy is the cause of the destruction of nature. The activity of man is

determined by patriarchal structure of each society. As in the words of James

Lovelock, “Nothing that we can do threatens her. But, of course, if we transgress in

our pollutions and our forest clearance, Gaia can move to a new stable state, and one

that’s no longer comfortable for us.”4 Lovelock (2006) mentioned that the concern for

the health of the earth is prior than the welfare of humanity. Here, we find that James

Lovelock’s Gaia Hypothesis is non-anthropocentric. Carolyn Merchant (1982)

considers that the image of nature as living and ‘nurturing mother’ prevents the

harmful actions of human beings towards nature.

Thus, we find that the discussion of Gaia Hypothesis clearly shows that all

life both human beings and non-human beings on earth are interconnected and are

3
Lovelock, James (1990): The Ages of Gaia, A Biography of Our Living Earth, Bantam Books, New
York, p. 19.
4
Lovelock, James (1996): Gaia, in Key Concepts in Critical Theory, Ecology, Carolyn Merchant (ed.),
Rawat Publications, Jaipur and New Delhi, India, p. 359.

20
part of the earth as a whole. This implies holism. Here, we find that the image of

Gaia or the Goddess representation of the Earth reveals the female image of nature as

sacred. This Goddess representation of the Earth regulates our behavior and prompts

us to protect nature from deterioration.

2.2 Deep Ecology and Ecofeminism

In this section we are going to discuss the relation between ecofeminism and

deep ecology. Deep ecology plays an important role in ecofeminism. Deep ecology

movement emerged from the ecological consciousness that arise with the publication

of Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” in 1962.

Arne Naess in a lecture in September 1972 at the Third World Future

Research conference, in Bucharest first introduced the terms ‘shallow ecology’ and

‘deep ecology’ which was first published in 1973 in ‘Inquiry’. Arne Naess (1973)

differentiated between the characteristics of the shallow ecology movement and the

deep ecology movement in his article “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range

Ecology Movement. A Summary.”

Arne Naess (1973) mentioned that the shallow ecology movement is

associated with pollution and resource depletion because it is concerned with “the

health and affluence of people in the developed countries.”5 Arne Naess (1993a) said

that in shallow ecology movement, the earth’s resources belong only to humans and

are viewed only as resources for the use of humans. According to Naess (1993b),

shallow ecology movement focuses on the issues of human overpopulation in

5
Naess, Arne (1973): The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary,
Inquiry, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring, p. 95.

21
developing countries. But shallow ecology movement is not concerned with human

overpopulation in industrial countries.

According to Naess (1973), deep ecology movement emphasizes on

‘biospherical egalitarianism’ and the interrelatedness of all forms of life, oppose

pollution and resource depletion and favours the principles of ‘diversity’, ‘symbiosis’,

‘complexity’, ‘anti-class posture’, ‘local autonomy’ and ‘decentralization’. According

to Naess, deep ecology rejects the view that humans are separate from nature and

affirms that humans are a part of nature. Arne Naess (1993a) said that deep ecology

movement focuses on the issues of pollution and resource depletion because it not

only affects the health of humans but also of all forms of life on earth. In deep

ecology movement, the earth’s resources are not viewed only as resources for the use

of humans but have value in itself. Deep ecology movement affirms that humans only

for the fulfillment of ‘vital needs’ can use natural resources. Deep ecology movement

emphasizes on the decrease and the stabilization of human population.

Thus, we see that shallow ecology focuses on the conservation of natural

resources only for the utilization of humans. Hence, we find that shallow ecology

affirms the instrumental value of nature and is anthropocentric and individualistic.

While, on the other hand, we see that deep ecology focuses on the conservation and

the preservation of natural resources not for the utilization of humans but because

they have inherent value. Hence, we find that deep ecology affirms the intrinsic value

of nature and is non-anthropocentric and holistic.

According to Arne Naess (1993a) there are eight principles that are

fundamental to deep ecology. These eight principles were developed by Arne Naess

22
and George Sessions in April 1984 in Death Valley, California. These principles are

as follows :

“(1) The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth

have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth).

These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world

for human purposes.

(2) Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these

values and are also values in themselves.

(3) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to

satisfy vital needs.

(4) The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a

substantially smaller human population. The flourishing of non-human

life requires a smaller human population.

(5) Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and

the situation is rapidly worsening.

(6) Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic

economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state

of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

(7) The ideological change will be mainly that of appreciating life quality

(dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an

increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound

awareness of the difference between bigness and greatness.

23
 (8) Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly

or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.”6

We can summarize these eight principles in the following manner. The first

point emphasizes on the intrinsic value of all living and non-living beings on earth.

The second point indicates the diversity and richness of all forms of life. The third

point indicates that only for ‘vital needs’ man can disturb nature. The fourth point

indicates control over human population. The fifth point illustrates that excessive

interference between man and nature should be reduced. The sixth point indicates that

scientific advancement needs to be sensitive to the ecosystems. The seventh point

denotes that ideology should be rooted on intrinsic value of nature. The eighth and the

final point denotes to implement the tenets of deep ecology. Thus, in interpreting

these eight principles we find that each of these principles embody values which are

fundamental because these principles express concern and veneration for nature as a

whole.

Arne Naess (1993b) describes deep ecology as ‘deep’ because it asks deeper

fundamental questions about ecological concerns which are significant and beneficial

for all forms of life on earth. According to Naess, the two fundamental norms of deep

ecology includes ‘biospherical egalitarianism’ and ‘Self-realization’. Naess stated that

‘biospherical egalitarianism’ implies that all forms of life on earth have “the equal

right to live and blossom”.7 For Naess (1973), biospherical egalitarianism implies

that all forms of life both human and non-human on earth are part of the nature as a

6
Naess, Arne (1993a): The Deep Ecological Movement, Some Philosophical Aspects, in Environmental
Philosophy, From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, Michael E. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Prentice-Hall Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 197.
7
Naess, Arne (1973): The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary,
Inquiry, Volume 16, Number 1, Spring, p. 96.

24
whole and therefore, have equal intrinsic value. Thus, we find that this norm of deep

ecology implies holism and is non-anthropocentric.

Another fundamental norm of deep ecology is ‘Self-realization’. According to

Naess (1993b), this norm is based on the identification of self with the nature as a

whole. For Naess, this norm implies that human beings with maturity experience

oneness with the natural world. The norm of ‘Self-realization’ presupposes that with

maturity, the interests of the individual self goes beyond the interests of other humans

and identifies with the interests of the non-human natural world. ‘Self-realization’ is a

process of identification, an identification which goes beyond the self-interest of an

individual self and the interests of other humans and embraces the interests of nature.

Naess (1993a) said that through this ‘increased’ identification with the nonhuman

natural world, the self is extended and thus, matures. Thus, we find that this norm

implies that human beings are not separate from nature but are a part of nature.

This norm of deep ecology implies holism and is non-anthropocentric. This norm

emphasizes on the interrelatedness of all life on earth.

Thus, we find that deep ecology is non-anthropocentric. According to deep

ecologists, anthropocentrism that is, human-centeredness is the cause of the ecological

destruction. But according to ecofeminists, androcentrism that is, male-centeredness

or patriarchy is the cause of the domination of women and the destruction of nature.

Rosemary Radford Ruether (2001) argues that deep ecologists fail to

recognize the source of the ecological crisis in androcentrism and thus overlooks the

connection between the domination of both women and nature. Ruether argues that

deep ecologists have included all human beings under the term anthropocentrism.

Ruether claims that all human beings equally do not subjugate nature but “elite males,

25
in different ways in different cultures, create hierarchies over subjugated humans and

nonhumans: men over women, whites over blacks, ruling class over slaves, serfs, and

workers.”8 In the words of Warwick Fox, “The target of the deep ecologists’ critique

is not humans per se (i.e., a general class of social actors) but rather human-

centeredness (i.e., a legitimating ideology).”9

Val Plumwood (1993) argues that deep ecologists fail to see the link between

anthropocentrism and androcentrism. In the words of Plumwood, “Anthropocentrism

and androcentrism in particular are linked by the rationalist conception of the human

self as masculine and by the account of authentically human characteristics as

centered around rationality and the exclusion of its contrasts (especially

characteristics regarded as feminine, animal, or natural) as less human.”10 While Jim

Cheney (1987) argues that deep ecology is itself androcentric.

Thus, ecofeminism focuses on androcentrism as the cause of the destruction of

nature whereas, deep ecology focuses on anthropocentrism as the source of the

ecological destruction. But both ecofeminism and deep ecology affirms the equal

value of all life both living and non-living on earth. This enhances welfare of all life

on earth.

8
Ruether, Rosemary Radford (2001): Deep Ecology, Ecofeminism, and the Bible, in Deep Ecology and
World Religions, New Essays on Sacred Grounds, David Landis Barnhill and Roger S. Gottlieb (eds.),
State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, p. 230.
9
Fox, Warwick (1993): The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and Its Parallels, in Environmental
Philosophy, From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, Michael E. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Prentice-
Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey, p. 223.
10
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. 303.

26
2.3 Social Ecology and Ecofeminism

The discussion of social ecology is also important in the context of

ecofeminism because both social ecologists and ecofeminists affirm that the source of

the ecological crisis can be traced to society.

According to Murray Bookchin (1993), social ecology is ‘social’ because it

acknowledges that deep-rooted ‘social problems’ are the cause of the present

ecological crisis. Bookchin stated that to address the ecological crisis, it is important

to recognize the relationship of human beings with each other because it enables to

see that the hierarchical and the class structures which pervade society bring about the

notion of dominating nature. Bookchin portrays a history of the different forms of

hierarchy in the society beginning with ‘gerontocracy’, the earliest form of

hierarchical domination in which the elders dominate the young, then ‘patricentricity’,

in which men dominate and rule women, then ‘patriarchy’, in which men not only

dominates women but also dominates other men. Bookchin maintains that hierarchy

is so deep-seated in the society than the class that the elimination of the class and the

economic exploitation does not guarantee the eradication of hierarchical forms of

domination from the society. Thus, we see that according to social ecology, the

hierarchical structure rooted in the society is the source of the domination of humans

by other humans.

In the words of Murray Bookchin, “With the rise of hierarchy and human

domination, however, the seeds are planted for a belief that nature not only exists as a

world apart, but that it is hierarchically organized and can be dominated.”11 Bookchin

11
Bookchin Murray (1993): What is Social Ecology?, in Environmental Philosophy, From Animal
Rights to Radical Ecology, Michael E. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, p.365.

27
(1993) maintains that the human domination of nature arise from the domination of

humans by other humans. Bookchin claims that the hierarchical structure of the

natural world in the ‘Great Chain of Being’ gives rise to the notion of dominating

nature. Bookchin stated that the domination of nature will cease when the class and

the hierarchical structures are eliminated from the society. Thus, we see that

according to social ecology, the domination of nature is the outcome of social

hierarchy and the domination of humans.

In the words of John P. Clark, social ecology “is dialectical because it sees all

of reality as being in a continual process of self-development and self-transformation,

and because it interprets phenomena in terms of their mutual determination as

inseparable parts of larger wholes. It is a naturalism because it takes reality to be

nature, and sees all beings as natural beings.”12 John P. Clark (1993) claims that as a

‘dialectical naturalism’, social ecology rejects the view that humans are separate from

nature and is holistic.

Clark (1993) said that ‘within’ nature the interaction of human beings with the

natural world is ‘continuous’ with the interaction of human beings with each other.

Clark believes that with the transformation of human society, the interaction of human

beings with the natural world will also undergo a change. Clark stated that through

this transformation human beings ‘re-form’ themselves as real members of the natural

world. Clark believes that this renders humans to abandon domination over other

humans and over nature. Thus, we find that social ecology emphasizes on holism. We

see that social ecology concentrates mainly on the transformation of human society.

As social ecology focuses mainly only the relationship of human beings with each

12
Clark, John P. (1993): Introduction, in Environmental Philosophy, From Animal Rights to Radical
Ecology, Michael E. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p.
345.

28
other, it is anthropocentric. In the words of John P. Clark, social ecology “sees

evolution, not simply as a process of adaptation by individual organisms, or even by

species, but also as a process that can only be understood by examining the interaction

between species and by studying “ecosystems” as complex, developing wholes.”13

According to Murray Bookchin (1993), social ecology views that through

evolution, nature and society are interconnected into one nature which is characterized

into ‘first nature’ and ‘second nature’. Bookchin (1993) distinguished between ‘first

nature’ which is ‘biotic nature’ and ‘second nature’ which refers to ‘human nature’.

Human beings live in the ‘first nature’ and create ‘second nature’ out of nature as a

whole. This ‘second nature’ is the social nature of human beings by which they create

to live in the natural world. According to Bookchin, human beings create an

environment that is conducive for them to survive in the natural world that is, their

‘unnatural’ activities which includes the science and technological development,

construction of social institutions, towns, cities etc. The characterization of social

hierarchy and conflict take place in the ‘second nature’.

In the words of Bookchin, “the very notion of the domination of nature by

man stems from the very real domination of human by human.”14 Here, we find that

according Bookchin, patriarchy is the cause of the domination of nature. According to

ecofeminists, patriarchy or androcentrism is the cause of the domination of both

women and nature. Thus, we find that the goal of both social ecology and

ecofeminism is to establish a society free from hierarchical structures of domination

including patriarchy.

13
Ibid., p. 347.
14
Bookchin, Murray (1982): The Ecology of Freedom, The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy,
Palo Alto, Cheshire Books, p. 1.

29
2.4 Sustainable Development and Ecofeminism

In order to discuss the relation between sustainable development and

ecofeminism we will first discuss the meaning of development. M.G. Chitkara stated

that development would include all possible socioeconomic changes impacting

directly the improvement of both individuals and society. Chitkara (1997) maintains

that development also includes control of ecological deterioration. Chitkara stated that

the concept of sustainable development not only includes the development of

individual and society but also the betterment of environment so, sustainable

development is holistic.

In 1972 in the United Nations Conference on the Environment (UNCE) held in

Stockholm, the concept of ‘Sustainable Development’ was first recognized. And with

the publication of the ‘World Conservation Strategy’ in 1980 jointly by the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN),

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Wildlife Fund

(WWF), the concept of ‘Sustainable Development’ was internationally recognized.

But the most acceptable and well-known definition of ‘Sustainable Development’ was

put forward by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in

1987 in its report called ‘Our Common Future’ as: “Sustainable development is

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs.”15 Since, the chairperson of the World

Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was Mrs. Gro Harlem

Brundtland, the Prime Minister of Norway so, the report is also known as the

“Brundtland Report”. Thus, from the above definition we find that sustainable

15
World Commission on Environment and Development [Brundtland Commission] (1987): Our
Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 43.

30
development focuses on satisfying the needs of human beings at present without

hindering the abilities of future human beings to satisfy their needs. Here, we find that

sustainable development emphasizes mainly on the needs of human beings and

therefore, it is anthropocentric.

In 1991, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources (IUCN), United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and World

Wildlife Fund (WWF) cooperatively published a document called ‘Caring for the

Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living’ and finally, in 1992 the United Nations

Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) was held at Rio de Janeiro,

Brazil. Most of the countries that participated in the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED) adopted ‘Agenda 21’, the main document

of the conference. Sustainable development focuses on some important issues which

include population, pollution, resource use, resource conservation, elimination of

poverty and protection of environment etc. The ‘Agenda 21’ focuses on the protection

and the preservation of the environment for human utilization. The Principle 1 of the

Rio Declaration states that “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for

sustainable development.”16 Thus, we find that sustainable development is

anthropocentric or human-centered. Here, nature is viewed as a resource for the

utilization of human beings.

M.G.Chitkara (1997) maintains that for sustainable development, the

development of women in every sphere is necessary. Women belong into various

castes and classes may be motivated and mobilized through developmental

programmes of a society.

16
United Nations (1993): Agenda 21, The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio, United
Nations Department of Public Information, New York, p.9.

31
 In conclusion, we can say that in Gaia Hypothesis, the earth is viewed as a

living being. The discussion of Gaia Hypothesis reveals that all life both human and

non-human on earth are interrelated. Therefore, Gaia Hypothesis is holistic and non-

anthropocentric. On the other hand, deep ecology focuses on the intrinsic value of all

life both human and non-human nature and therefore, deep ecology is non-

anthropocentric and holistic. Deep ecology emphasizes on the restoration of nature.

Whereas, according to social ecology, social hierarchy is responsible for the

ecological destruction. Social ecology also views that patriarchy is the cause of the

domination of nature. Since, social ecology concentrates mainly on human

relationships so, social ecology is anthropocentric. And lastly, sustainable

development is also anthropocentric because it views that nature is a resource for

human use. According to ecofeminists, androcentrism or patriarchy is the cause of the

domination of women and the destruction of nature. Ecofeminism is non-

anthropocentric and holistic. Ecofeminism emphasizes on the interrelatedness of all

life on earth. Thus, we find that Gaia hypothesis, deep ecology, social ecology,

sustainable development and ecofeminism emphasizes on the protection of nature. In

the next chapter, we will discuss ecofeminism from Indian perspective.



32