ResearchGate

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282297066

The Oppression of Women and Nature: Ecofeminism as a Framework for an

Expanded Ecological Social Work
Article in Families in Society: the Journal of Contemporary Human Services ■ May 2002
DOI: 10.1606/1044-3894.20

CITATIONS
READS
71 6,000

2 authors, including:

Fred H. Besthorn
Wichita State University
42 PUBLICATIONS 628 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fred H. Besthorn on 19 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the

downloaded file.
FRAMEWORKS FOR PRACTICE

The Oppression of Women and Nature:

Ecofeminism as a Framework for an
Expanded Ecological Social Work
by Fred H. Besthorn & Diane Pearson McMillen

Abstract
This article broadens and clarifies the way social work conceptualizes its ecological/system constructs and the professional
commitments that flow from them. It utilizes important insight from a contemporary, radical environmental philosophy-
ecofeminism—to search for language and descriptions that may help the profession begin the process of formulating and de-
picting an expanded ecological model of practice. This article sketches the essential philosophical premises of a revisioned
ecological model and offers suggestions for interpreting and applying this mode!. Specifically, it gives attention to critiquing
the interrelated oppression stemming from modem economic theory and practice, and ways in which soda! workers may
collaborate with communities and individuals to bring about change.

IN RECENT SOCIAL WORK HISTORY, a variety of the- systems vernacular, nonetheless position themselves within
orists have routinely labored to develop and affirm the ini- the ecological/systems tradition by focusing on environ-
portancc of an integrated framework of person-environ- mental barriers that prevent individuals from access!ngsup-
ment transactions. Though these frameworks often vary , ports necessary for full human development. Many of these
widely relative to specific emphases and practice applica- . perspectives have received prominent attention in sodal
tions, each have evolved at one level or another in an at- , work courses on human behavior and sodal environment'
tempt to bridge the gap between new developments in gen- . and have often been mainstays in sodal work textbooks,
eral systems thinking and emerging trends to conceive the (Compton & Galaway, 1989; Dorfmann, 1988; Hcpworth
world in holistic, ecological terms (Robbins, Chattcrjce, & Sc Larson, 1993; Longress, 1995; Norfin & Chess, 1997;
Canda, 1998). Sodal work’s ecological/systems frame- Pinais & Minahzn, 1973; Querait, 1996; Zastrow St Kirst-
works have ranged from William Gordon’s (1969) and Har- Ashman, 1997).
net Bartlett’s (1970) goodness-of-fit model, the general sys-' Ecological/systems models of sodal work practice
terns perspectives of Hartman (1970) and Janchill (1969), conceive of problems in living as a result of stress assodat-
the situational approach of Max Siporin (1972), the sys- ed with inadequate fit between people and their environ-'
terns /'ecosystems perspective of Carol Meyer (1970,1976, meats (Besthom, 1997; Kemp, 1994; Kemp, Whittaker,'
1981,1983), the ecological/life models of Card Germain & Tracy, 1997; McDowell, 1994). These problems often
(1973, 1976, 1978a, 1978b, 1979, 1980, 1981a, 1981b, revolve around stressful life transitions, maladaptive inter-
1983, 1991) and Germain and Alex Gitterman (1976, personal processes, and unresponsive environments. In
1980, 1987, 1995, 1996). Later environmentally focused order to fully enhance human functioning the physical as
frameworks such as the strucmral approach of Ruth Mid- well as multiple levels and dimensions of the social envi-
. dleman and Gale Goldberg-Wood (1974, 1989) and em- ronment must be assessed, concurrently. In the words of
powerment/sodal justice oriented modds of Judith Lee Germain (1978), “People and their environments are
(1994), Carol Swenson (1998), and Lorraine Gutierrez viewed as interdependent, complementary parts of a
(1990, 1994, 1995), uhile not specifically cast in general whole in which person and environment are constantly

Famines in Society: i he journal of Contemporary Human Services

Copyright 2002 Families International, Inc.

2
2
1
 FAMILIES IN SOCIETY • Volume 83, Numbers

changing and shaping the other” (p. 539). From this per- mixed reasons for this singular focus—not the least of
spective, environment is viewed as a general, multidimen- which are powerful political forces currently supporting
sional designation of the entire external milieu of struc- individually focused work—there still remains a tendency,
tures, events and experiences impinging upon personal in practice, to discuss environmental demands while at the
development. This definition is enhanced by Germain and same time predominantly concentrating on individual
Gitterman’s correct understanding that environment is ... adaptation (Fook, 1993; Gould, 1987; Kemp, 1994;
Kemp; Robbins, Chatterjee, 8t Canda, 1998; Whittaker &
dynamic and complex. It comprises many kinds of Tracy, 1997). As Saleebey (1990) suggests, the essential
systems, each with its characteristic structure, level of focus of most ecological/system theories and all their vari-
organization and spatial and temporal properties. ants is, “on how individuals adapt to environmental de-
The social environment comprises human beings or- mands. While there is talk of changing environments, the
ganized in dyadic relations, social networks, bureau- message of the ecological approach in general is that, in
cratic institutions, and other social systems includ- many cases, it is the client(s) who will have to adapt” (pp.
ing the neighborhood, community, and society itself. 10-11). There is nothing inherent in the fundamental on-
. The physical environment comprises the natural tology and epistemology of conventional ecological/sys-
■ world of animals, plants, and land farms, and the tems theory that requires it to address “either the struc-
built world of structures and objects constructed by . tural features or power relationships in society” (Robbins,
human beings. The social and physical environments Chatterjee, & Canda, 1998, p. 49). And, as Saleebey
are related to each other in complex ways [italics in (1990) once again notes, “the-realities of power, conflict,
original], (1980, p. 137) oppression, and violence, so central to the survival of
■ many groups, are given a curious and unreal patina by the
Limitations of Conventional adaptation perspective” (p. 11). Fortunately, recent social .
Ecologicai/System Models work ecological/system theoretical refinements, particu-
larly the contributions of Germain (1991), Germain and
Conventional ecological/system models have made a. Gitterman (1996) and the Structural/Empowerment per-
significant contribution to social work by drawing the pro- spectives of Lee (1994), Swenson (1998), Wood and Mid-
fession’s attention to environmental intervention as a core dleman (1989), and others, have begun to balance the
social work function, by focusing the profession’s atten- model’s emphases by more dearly defining and explicating
tion on the complex nature of interaction between indi- environmental-level influences.
viduals and environments and by offering a unifying per- The “individual determinism” (Gould, 1987, p, 248)
spective that can help social workers address all levels of so characteristic of ecological/systcm’s language also in- '
systemic performance (Kemp, 1994; Robbins, Chatterjee, creases the likelihood that other important environmental
& Canda, 1998; Schriver, 1998). Conventional ecologi- constructs related to human development will be mini-
cal/system models have also been strongly challenged by mized or completely disregarded. This is particularly so
contemporary social critics (Berman, 1996; Capra, 1996; with regard to the way these models have dealt with the
Perdue, 1986; Turner, 1986; Whitechurch and Constan- concept of nature. While environment, as a general term
tine, 1993) and social work theorists (Berger, 1986; designating the entire milieu of external (i.e. familial, built,
Besthom, 1997, 2001; Gould, 1987; Leighninger, 1977; •organizational, social) or extra-personal circumstance, is
McDowell, 1994; McNutt, 1994; Robbins, Chatterjee, & given expiidt attention; nature, as a more specific form of
Canda, 1998; Rodway, 1986; Saleebey, 1990; Tester, environment constituting the geosphere, hydrosphere, at-
1994; Wakefield, 1996a, 1996b; Weick, 1981) on a num-. mosphere, biosphere and ecological domains of the noo-
ber of different grounds. These theorists have been critical. sphere, (Berry, 1988; Hoff Sc McNutt, 1994), is given lit-
of ecological/systems frameworks for, among others tle detailed attention in conventional ecological/systems
things, having an inherently conservative sociopolitical models. This tends to relegate the nature construct to the '
orientation, focusing on narrowly defined domains of en- • language and experience of sdentific abstraction
vironmental transaction, being too general and ambigu- (Bookchin, 1986; Drengson, 1989; Goldsmith, 1993;
ous, and lacking a comprehensive critical perspective. Hoff, 1998; Roszak, 1992; Tester, 1994).
One of the most poignant critiques of conventional From this vantage point, nature comes to be viewed
ecological/systems theory rests on its heavy reliance upon as other, separate from human experience and meaning,
personal or individual adaptive processes as the corner- simply out there; it is threatening, difficult to manage, not
stone of stable system functioning. While there may be. easily reducible to guidelines for practice. Nature, with all
 Besthorn 8 McMillen • The Oppression of Women and
of its uncertainty and yet seemingly inexhaustible re- Earth, Nature
once known as the anima mundi, is excluded and
sources, is more appropriately understood and adminis- becomes a kind of detached abstraction winch leads to .
tered by management experts armed with an abundance of concepts and actions that cannot be reconciled with either
technical solutions. It is nothing more than data to be the health of persons or of nature.
studied or resources to be procured. Even with all the im- The language and emphases of most conventional eco-
portant contributions of conventional ecological/systems 1 logical/systcm models have often helped the profession
perspectives, nature has hot generally become the concern maintain the person-in-environmental vernacular while in
of social work. reality the profession moved toward a central concern with
Though not necessarily denigrating die importance of die person in interaction with increasingly diminished en-.
nature or totally ignoring the concept (Germain, 1979, ■ vironmeatal constructs (Kemp, 1994). The value of a cli-
19S1-, 1991,1996) in its understanding of human purpose ’ : ent’s direct experience with nature was 'marginalized or
and function,Social work’s ecoiogical/system frameworks' completely discounted. A rhetorical rather than actual
have tended to implicitly accept modernity’s abstracted commitment to a comprehensive, deeply situated ecologi-
conceptualization of the natural realm. Social work’s adop- cal perspective has normalized a denatured image of person
' tion of the conventional ecological/system’s narrowly de- and environment. It tends to portray the individual as es-
fined environmental constructs and its preoccupation with ' sentially independent from resonant identification with the
personal constructs have created a state of professional con- organismic whole (Hoff & McNutt, 1994).
. sdousness which suggests that a person exists on a plane Social work must continue to broaden and clarify the
that profoundly separates them from their place in the larg- way it conceptualizes, its ccoiogkal/system models and'
er natural environment. Germain’s (1981) discussion of as- the professional responsibilities that flow from' them. An
pects of both the natural and built environment nonethe- important, contemporary environmental philosophy
less captures something of this sentiment: known as ecological feminism or ecofeminism offers so-
cial work important conceptual assistance as it searches'
But the physical environment is still a largely umex- for language and descriptions to help it better depict and
: plorcd territory in social work practice and tends to explain the relationship between person and the natural
be regarded—when it is regarded at all—as a static realm.
. setting in which hitman events and processes occur A more complete consciousness of tire person/na-
■ almost, if not entirely; independently of the qualities ture ontology has the potential of changing the character
of their physical setting. Any possible relation of the of all of the transactions with which social work concerns
., . physical environment to interface phenomena of itself. With it, social work becomes more than just envi-
adaptation, stress, and coping ... tends to be over- ronmentally sensitive. In fact, searching out and attempt-
looked in favor of influences exerted by the social en- ing to understand the complexity of interrelationships be-
vironment. (p. 104) tween person and nature may be indispensable to social
work’s continuing social justice emphasis and its value
Social work’s commitment to person in environment, commitment to support empowerment of oppressed per-
from the point of view of most conventional sons and groups. Because of the increasing association be-
ecological/systems perspectives, becomes a kind of eu- tween individual, economic, and political upheaval and
phemism for person on environment. That is, consciously, environmental degradation (Besthom, 1997; Besthorn &
people don’t really live in an environment in the sense of Tcgtmricr, 1999; Hoff and McNutt, 1994; McLaughlin,
being deeply bonded physically, emotionally, and spiritual- 1995); it is apparent that these cannot be completely
ly; they simply live on top of it so to speak. Person and na- separated from the ways in which we envision and expe-
ture are ontologically separate and physically other. There rience our relationship with the natural world. That is, is-
is little or no recognition of a connection or a situated sues of environmental degradation and concerns for a re-
rootedness. And, since seeing nature as other is common- animated person/nature consciousness cannot be
ly associated with viewing it as an adversary, individual at- separated from all those systemic forces that function to
tention is thus focused on figuring ways to manage, con- maintain all forms of injustice, whether toward nature or
trol or adapt to tire “brutally hostile and unyielding other human beings.
natural world” (Bookchin, 1986). Deeper (intuitive,
transpersonal, experiential, compassionate) understanding
of one’s identity with the natural environment; the deep
rootedness of the human psyche with the psyche of the
FAMILIES IN SOCIETY ■ Volume 83, Number 3

4

between feminism and cxology is also suggested by Sandi- ness and the structures that perpetuate it is the root cause
lands (1991), who defines ecofeminism as “a theory and
movement which bridges the gap between feminism and
. ecology, but which transforms both to create a unified
praxis to end all forms of domination” (p. 90). At about
the time die emerging disciplines of evolutionary biology
and ecological science came to the realization that their ef-
forts to protea the integrity of nature were incomplete
without a trenchant critique of existing society and its ten-
dency to dominate both nature and humanity'; feminism
also began to make the connection between the oppres-
sion of women and the oppression of nature (Hallen,
1995; Harding, 1986; Keller, 1985; King, 1983,1989;.
Namerwirth, 1986), Feminist critiques of culture and pol-
itics were ontologieally centered by the inclusion of an
ecological perspective of the kind emerging in the new bi-
ology' and die dynamic systems models of the ecological
sciences (Eng, 1989). Many feminists began to apply eco-
logical factors to their theories and strategies in the same
way gender, race, and class faaors had been applied to
feminist analysis; leading to the emergence of a new eco-
logical feminism.
Besthom 8 McMilleri • The Oppression of Women and
Nature
of famine, of overpopulation, of the callous destruction of
the natural environment” (p. 180). In a similar vein,
' ecofeminist writer Ynestra Eng (1989) argues that any
movement claiming an ecological interest is simply in-
complete without a critique of power. She observes that
“without a feminist analysis of social domination that re-
veals the roots of misogyny and hatred of nature, ecology
remains an abstraction: it is incomplete” (p. 24). The
sense of this is summarized by Ruether (1989):
There can be no ecological ethic simply as a- new rela-
tion of “ntanx and “nature. * Any ecological ethic
must always take into account the structures of social
domination and exploitation that mediate domina-
tion of nature and prevent concern for the welfare of
the whole community in favor of the immediate ad-
vantage of the dominant class, race, and sex. (p. 149) '
Ecofeminism exhorts humanity to give up power as it
has been traditionally'' conceived and move toward what
Sandilands (1994) calls a “wild justice” grounded in poiit-'
ical action. Wild justice is an exhaustive sense of justice
that challenges all vestiges of power inequalities and ulti-
mately dismantles them. This point of view is expressed by
Petra Kelly (1989):

Otir aim is radical, nonviolent change outside.—-and

inside of us! The macrocosm and the microcosm! This
has to do witfj transforming power! Hot power over,
or power to dominate, or power to terrorize—but
shared power; abolishing power as we know it, replac-
ing it with the power of nonviolence or something
common to all, to be used by all and for all! (p. x)

A third theme emerging from the literature is related

to the way ecofcminist philosophy envisages the idea of in-,
tcrconncctedness. Interconnectedness for ecofeminists is a
view that the parts of all energy, matter, arid reality are re-
lated to the greater whole. All things are connected in
complex webs of communal networks (Griffin, 1989;
Holloway, 1991; Berman, 1994). This whole is not a ab-
straa mentalism but has infinitely complicated characteris-
tics somewhat analogous to the way communities of be-
ings manage individual and collectivist realities.
Ecofemiiist writers suggestjthat humans have lost their in-
tegrated pholencss through a gradual shortfall of percep-
For Starhawk (1989), ecofeminism’s power tritiques are tual awaijeness initiated and sustained by modern institu-
essential for societal transformation because' “powerless- tions, economies, and educational systems. Swimme
(1990), for instance, compares the fragmentation of the

2
2
5
 j-v\iviiLJts IN butlfcl Y - Volume 83, Numbers
modem mind with a frontal lobotomy which essentially themselves do not change (Holloway, 1991; Capra,
shuts down a person’s fundamental cognitive and sentient 1996). By manipulating the parts of any system, the whole ■
powers. This deficiency began with the introduction of is changed (i.e. the whole is the sum of the parts). The.
positivist scientific strategies and is sustained through all ■ corresponding change is always, or perhaps presumably,
other educational and economic processes based on posi- for the better. This point is illustrated in Swimme’s (1990)
■. tivist premises. By the time formal education is complete ... comparison of the tumultuous, fragmented, reductionist
big bang theory of the origin of the universe with the .
we have only a sliver of our original minds still oper- ecofeminist vision of a “Great Birth.” Instead of war-like
ative ... It is a sliver chiseled to perfection for con- ■ images of bombs and explosions, as root metaphors for
trotting, for distancing, for calculating and for creation, ecofeminists visualize a complex and mystical
dominating Our insistence on analysis, on com- birthing process, swelling and growing into life. Nature
putation, on categorization has blinded us to the re- was and is birthed as we are. It is a mystery to be experi-
ality of the whole. We have been seated at a table enced rather than explained. And because it is a living en-
heavy with food, and instead of realizing that this is tity, not simply a random reassembly of billions of pieces
a feast we are meant to join, we occupy our minds of cosmic dust and debris, there is an essential organic
with counting the silverware over and over as we unity between nature and ourselves (Starhawk, 1990).
starve to deads. (Swimme, 1990, p. 16) This interconnected unity leads to action motivated by
compassionate understanding and appreciation rather
. Similarly, Griffin (1989) suggests that modem civi- than compctitionythe experience of feeiing with all beings
lization's root metaphor is division rather than connec- now and into future, generations.
; tion. She concludes that... Ecofeminism thus rejects the dominance, competi-
tion, materialism, and technosdentific exploitation infier- '
we no longer feel ourselves to be a part of this earth. ent in modernist, competition-based social systems.
We regard our fellow creatures as enemies. And, Ecofeminism instead assumes that healthy interactions are.
very young, we even learn to disown apart of our .based on caring and compassion and the creation and nur-
own being. We come to believe that we do not know turing of life (Christ, 1990). Compassion and caring for
what we know ... dividedness is etched into our lan- nature are part of ecofeminist processes because all . of na-
guage. (Griffin, 1989, p. 7) . ture is seen as intimately connected with humans and as
having inherent value. Nature has an existence and voice
Ecofeminism seeks' to heal this dulling of our sentient worth hearing and experiencing,
capacities by reweaving the inherent interconnectedness in
all of the universe through a revitalization of each person’s A New Ecological Model: Premises,
direct, ■ lived, and sensual experience with the complex Implications, and Applications
whole of nature (Diamond 8c Orenstein, 1990; Holloway,
199T, Merchant, 1992). As suggested, ecofeminism borrows from and shares
From this complex ontology of interconnectedness, similarities with many sotiocultural critiques of friodem
ecofeminists understand human beings as' not being sepa- society such as postmodern philosophy, social construc-
rate from or above nature. They are one small part of a tionism, marxian theory, and ecology. It takes its place in
whole, rather than the pinnacle of nature. In separating na- a long historical line of alternative voices inspiring respect
ture from persons, humanity creates a nature which is made for the natural world such as the ancient animism of as-
up of dead, unintelligent matter. Ecofeminists offer a alter- sorted primal and aboriginal cultural (Oelschlaeger, ■
native view of nature that suggests that “consciousness is an .1991), the ecospirituai wisdom of Chinese, Buddhist,
integral part of nature” (Griffin, 1990, p. 88) and that na- Hindu, Christian, and Islamic traditions and the earth-
■ ture is soulful. It is this .great soulfulness of nature which centered cosmology of native or indigenous cultures
connects, deeply, unalterably, nature with humanity. (Kinsley, 1995). Ecofeminism also shares similarities with
Given this, ecofeminism rejects the reductionist ten- the more contemporary and secular ecoromantic tradi-'
dencies of the modernist project by emphasizing that the tions of Thoreau and Muir, the ecophiiosophical axioms of
organic wholeness of the universe is greater than the sum deep ecology, die ecoactivist and ecovisionary approaches
of its parts. Reductionism understands all complex phe- of the Animal Liberation Front, Greenpeace, and Earth-
nomena as being reducible to their smallest parts. Change
.consists in rearrangement of the parts, though the parts

2
2
6
 Besthom 8-McMUlen • The Oppression of Women and
Nature'
First, and ecoliteraxy works of those like Terry Tempest constructing an integrated language of person and
Williams, Gary Synder and Barry Lopez (List, 1993; Mer-, nature,
chant, 1992). .
Ecofeminism is not a perfect.movement. It has been
one that fiilly incorporates the powerful image of
embroiled in its own internal debates (Biehl 1988, 1991; inter-
'Warren, 1990, 1994) and conflicts with competing mod- connectedness, social work enhances its ability to
els of ecological sensibility (Fox, 1989; Salleh, 1992, under-
1993; Zimmerman, 1994). One should not romanticize it stand and thus act upon a broader range of human
or its ecological and sociopolitical ideas, but one must also
issues.
not minimize the important contribution it has made to.
humanity’s understanding of itself and its appropriate re-
Adopting an alternative metaphor of
lationship to planetary ecosystems. human/nature rela-
The major contribution of ecofeminist philosophy is tionship, for example that of a nurturing mother
its focus on a new language arid new ontology of person who
and nature, and interrelationship between the two. kindly provides for the needs of her children,
Ecofeminist thought suggests
suggests
to social work an alternative
ontology as a basis for under- something uniquely
different and
standing person, nature, inter-
relationship, and issues of em-
Ecofeminist thought... offers social transformative in the
powerment that diverge
significantly from the profes- work an opportunity to construct a way humans sense their
place with the larger
sion’s conventional ecologi-
cai/systems models. It offers expanded ecological model more natural envi-
social work an opportunity to ronment and their place in
construct a expanded ecologi- consistent with professional values the community' of being.
cal mode! more consistent It
with professional values and and practice commitments... dramaticaEy reconstructs
practice commitments to so- a capricious and
cial justice arid efforts to end
discrimination and oppres-
dangerous na-
sion (Code of Ethics, 1996). With this in mind, several ' ture into a nature that provides life-giving and
questions arise. First, what are some of the essential life-sustain-
premises that can be derived from ecofeminism to form ing nourishment.
the basis ,of.a expanded ecological model of social work Important practice impEcations flow from an expand-;
and what are some potential implications of this model for ed, ecofeminist inspired, ecological model. For example,
social work practice? for social work to operate out of
Several important premises may be distilled from an expanded ecological model,
ccofeminist philosophy. One, by defining nature as other it must address those powerful
and essentially hostile, or by hierarchically relegating it to systemic oppressions that main-'"
a position of lower rank, humanity simultaneously defines tain human alienation. An- ex-;,
itself in a way that severely constricts its ability to create in- panded ecological social work
dividual and coEective meaning. The reality' is that there is would fully recognize that just:
no value-based hierarchal ordering of nature and no natu- as humanity and nature need to
ral antagonism and separation between humans and na- be' interrelatedly understood, so
ture. Nature is one with and beneficial for humanity'. A too must modem social; poEth
second premise derived from, ecofeminism is that in large cal, and economic reaEties
measure social, poHtical, economic and environmental is- (Mack, 1995). That is, issues of
sues are interrelated and frmdamentaEy associated with environmental degradation and'
humanity’s philosophical understanding of its relationship concerns for a reanimated
with nature and the practices that stem from it. By human/nature consciousness caruiot.be separated from
those systemic forces that function to maintain all forms of
 Besthom 8-McMUlen • The Oppression of Women and
injustice, whether toward nature or other human beings. . Nature'
There is a strong social justice logic inherent in this
expanded ecological model of social work. The intercon- ;
nectedness focus of the model suggests that snuggles
against oppressive, systemic forces that denigrate nature '
are intertwined with struggles against aE forces that also
oppress humans. The oppression that keeps reaEzation of
a dynamic, harmonious, human/nature relationship out of
consciousness is connected to other forms of human op-
pression including economic exploitation, racism, sexism,.
and patriarchy. Oppressive social institutions arc an ex-
pression of an alienated coEective psyche but also structure
and maintain an alienated coEective psyche. Though
human oppression and oppression of nature appear to
exist in separate form, struggle against any one in isolation
cannot be effective. Concern for any oppression necessi-
tates concern for aE oppression..
The expanded ecological model’s justice logic
portends nothing short of social work’s involvement in
 FAMILIES IN SOCIETY • Volume 83, Number 3
fostering a radical change in the social, political, and eco-
nomic structures of modern, industrial society. Adopting
this revised ecological framework changes the identity of
conventional social work practice. It suggests that the pro-
fession must return to and significantly expand upon its
progressive, activist roots. A new ecological social work es-
tablishes the foundation of a new sociopolitical mandate. It
suggests the profession has an obligation to examine all op-
pressive political, social, and economic structures of mod-
em society and the policies that extend them. It requires
that social workers become professionally involved and per-'
sonally committed to implementing change, both within
and outside the confines of office, agency, and academy.'
One potential application of a new ecological social
work might include the profession’s active participation in
critiquing modern economic theory and the way it works
to sustain oppression of both humanity and nature (Agger,
1979, 1992; Daly & Cobb, 1989; Greider, 1997;
Hochschild, 1983; Mander 8c Goldsmith, 1996;
McLaughlin, 1995; McNutt, 1994; Shi, 1985; Singer,
1994; Tester, 1994). Western economic theory tends to
appreciate only those entities and practices that have mar-
ket value; material things and the flow of goods and ser-
vices to satisfy consumer need. Modern economies create
need for products even if needs for such things do not le-
gitimately exist. As critical theorist Theodor Adomo
(1989) had observed over 30 years ago, the commodities
of industrial culture are governed not by their specific.
need or harmonious fit in a given society, but rather by
“the principle of their realization of value” (p. 129), or the
degree to which they are calculated to produce profit.
Modem economies turn natural things into commodities
and everyday experiences into a “technical world” of de-
scription, reason, and efficiency (Marcuse, 1989, p. 121).
Needs ana wants become relatively indistinguishable. This
practice tends to foster the collective myths that con-
sumption and human happiness are essentially equivalent
and only those who produce have value.
This illusion of consumer happiness creates inequality
as an ever-increasing number of people scramble to get.
their piece of the relatively scarce, good life pie. In an ef-
fort to keep pace Math an ever-growing, consumptive pen-
chant natural resources are systematically destroyed. Fewer
people are able to realistically share in this good life vision.
More and more are marginalized as they are recruited to
fuel the productive fires that feed the material appetites of
an ever-smaller elite few.
One way social workers might consider altering this
malevolent cycle would be for them to encourage a
commitment to a core social value of material equality
(McLaughlin, 1995; Hoff, 1998). Until individuals and
societies can agree to a new collective vision of the
good life, the idea of material equality offers a correc-
tive to the individual and social demand for economic
progress and material consumption. If material equality
is recognized as a high social priority, then the incessant
process of trying to achieve higher and higher privilege
though material possession and consumption would be
diminished. Demands for economic growth and its re-.
suiting inequality and depletion of natural resources
would be slowed in a society where having more and
more things aregarded as contemptible rather than an
identifier of merit or status.
Ultimately, however, an expanded ecological social
work must endorse more than just an equitable redistri-
bution of material wealth. This redistributive focus of jus-
tice does not change the underlying reliance on resource
expropriation and human exploitation to satisfy human
need. An expanded ecological social work must also ad-
vocate for an alternative vision of the good life. That is, a
new insight into what constitutes a joyous and satisfying,
rather than satiated, life. It is a vision that must be com-
patible with a natural environment that can support the
continuation of human life and well-being.
This alternative vision must reflect a long-term com-
mitment to identifying sources of human satisfaction that
can intergenerationally Sourish in harmony with nature
(Shi, 1985; Jacob, 1997; Hoff, 1998). The focus of
human satisfaction changes from the quantity of life’s
possessions to quality of life. Social work must recognize
this as a difficult undertaking because Western society has
lost, or has yet to develop, the language and capacity to
assess satisfaction apart from material consumption.
Social work can contribute to a new view of human
satisfaction by helping people appraise ways of being
that are rewarding, not exploitive, of humans, not dam-
aging to nature, and not based on consumptive materi-
alism (Durning, 1995). Things to be considered might
include simple conversations, spiritual rituals, neighbor-
hood/community gatherings, family outings, artistic
pursuits, music, dance, literature, and experiencing na-
ture. All are ways of life and being that can endure
through countless generations. This is a kind of simple
life vision adorned with nonmaterial sources of fulfill-
ment. It includes the kinds of activities and associations
that most people would admit are the main determi-
nants of happiness.
For example, one might visualize an inner-city
neighborhood that has been depleted, polluted, victim-
ized, and virtually destroyed in the -wake of modern
1
0

economic/consumptive policies .and practices. The ques-
tion would then be how might a new vision operate in-
this setting? An initial step would be for social workers to
again take on the role of becoming community and
neighborhood organizers in an effort to confront current
economic, environmental, and social issues. This would
invlolve developing mechanisms that promote participa-
tion by every member of the neighborhood and acting as
advocates who apply pressure and call attention to the
need for local, state, and national intervention. It also
would mean social workers would function as facilitators
of skill development in order to allow residents to act on
behalf of diemselves and their neighborhood.
Social workers would also need to take an active lead -
in helping residents construct a new conceptual vision of a
revitalized and satisfying community. This would be a vi-
sion of community or neighborhood that, though not
complete or perfect in any utopian sense, fosters local \
strength and interdependence. It is a vision of community
that is not continually subject to the debilitating econom- ■ ■
ic cycles and social inequities associated with the modem,
consumer-oriented culture. There are many models of '
economically viable, environmentally safe, personally satis-
fying, and socially flourishing communities from which so-'
dal work may effectively draw (Sine, 1991: Anthony,
1995; Hoff, 1998).
Conclusion
The ideas presented in this article suggest the need for
a fundamental change in our understanding of environ-
ment/nature and as an outgrowth of that, new language
and insights directed toward radical changes in our social,
political, and economic structures. The challenge of this
paper constitutes a call to action for the sodal work pro-
fession to return to its progressive, activist roots. Social
work must recognize that its conceptualization of envi-
ronment has had a limited focus and has emphasized indi-
vidual adaptation to environmental demands. Conse-
. quently, despite the vernacular of the existing
ecological/system models, the profession has continued
its movement toward a dominant approach directed to-
ward changing individuals rather than systems.
There are many people who fed overwhelmed and im- ■
mobilized by the current state of our world. They express
concern for the depletion of our natural resources, the loss
of connectedness on many levels, and the systemic oppres-
sion that maintains human alienation. Social work can-
counter this sense of overwhelming isolation and alienation
by adopting an expanded ecological framework, such as the
one suggested here. An expanded ecological sodal work
model encompasses and addresses a broad range of envi-
Besthorn BMcMillen ■ The Oppression of Women and
ronmental and social issues rather than dissecting interre-
Nature
lated issues into disconnected pieces. As ecofeminist writers
have suggested, tire introduction of positivist sdentific
strategies have resulted in an acceptance of a fragmented
view of modem life. When in feci, all tilings are connected
in complex webs of communal networks.
A expanded ecological social work model holds great
promise for action that is consistent with sodal work’s re-
juvenated commitment to social justice. It emphasizes in-
teractions and actions based on caring and compassion,
rather than the dominance, competition, and exploitation
inherent in-our current competition-based sodal systems.
This model presents social work with the opportunity to
take a philosophically grounded position that publicly and
openly acknowledges an awareness of the interrelatedness
of social, political, economic, and environmental issues.
With this model, we can form a foundation from which to
work to end oppression in all its forms. We have- been of-
fered a vision and a framework Opportunity is knocking
at our door.
References
Adorno, T. (1989). The culture industry reconsidered. In S. E.
Bronncr Sc D, M. Kciner (Eds,), Critical theory and- society
(pp. 128-135). New York: Routledge.
Agger, B. (1979). Western Marxism: An introduction: Classical and
contemporary sources. San Monica, CA‘ Goodyear.
Agger, B. (1994). The discourse of domination: -From thefrankfurt school
to postmodernism. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Anthony, C. (1995), Bcopsychology and deconstruction of wholeness.
In T. Roszak, M. Gomes, & A. Kanner (Eds.), Ecopsyeholqgy:
Restoring the earth healing the mind (pp. 263-278). San
Frandsco: Sierra Club Books.
Bartlett, H. M. (1970). The common base of social wort practice. Wash-
ington, DC: National Association of Social Workers,
Berger, IL M. (19S6). Social work practice models: A better recipe.
Social Casework, 67(1), 45-54.
Berger, P., & Ludcmann,T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A
treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor
Books.
Berman, M. (1996). The shadow side of systems theory. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 36( 1), 28-54.
Berman, T. (1994}.Tbc rape of mother nature: Women in the lan-
guage of environmental discourse. Trumpeter, 22(4), 173-178.
Berry, T. (1988). The dream of the earth. San Francisco: Sierra Chib Books,
Besihom, F, H. (1997). Reconcepttmlizsng social work’s person-in-envi-
ronmentperspective: Explorations in radical environmental
thought. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Besthorn, F. H., & Tegtmeier, D. (1999). Opinions/Perspectives/Be-
nds: Nature as professional resource—A new ecological ap-
proach to helping. Kansas Chapter of NASWNews, 24(2), 15.
FAMILIES IN SOCIETY • Volume 83, Number 3

1
2
 Besthorn 8 McMillen • The Oppression of Women and
Nature

2
3
1
 FAMILIES IN SOCIETY • Volume 83, Number 3
Morrow R, & Brown, D. (1994). Critical theory and methodology. . Singer, P. (1994). Famine, affluence, and morality. In L. May & S.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ■ ' ■ Shiran (Eds.), Applied allies: A multicultural approach
Namerwirth, M. (19S6). Science seen through a feminist prism. In IL . (pp. 148-157). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prcnrice HalL
Bleier (Ed,). Feminist approaches to science (pp. 3S-51). New ■ : Siporin, M. (1972). Situational assessment and intervention. Social
York: Pcrgamon. - . Casework, 5,5(1), 91-109. .
National Association of Social Workers. (1996). Code of ethics. Wash- Skolimowski, H. (1990). For the record: On the origin of eco- .
ington, DC: Author. ■ • . philosophy. Trumpeter, 7(1), 44-48. ■ '
Norlhi, J. M., Sc Chess, W. A. (1997). Human behavior and. the social Spretnak, C. (1990), Ecofemimsm: Our roots and flowering. In. I. Di-
environment: Social systems theory (3r^ cd.). Boston: Yvllyn and ■ ; amond & G. Orcnstein (Eds.), Etweaving the world: The '
. Bacon. emergence of ecofeminism (pp. 3-14). San Francisco: Sierra Club'
Oelsdilaeger, M. (1991). The idea of wilderness: From prehistory to the . Books, .
age of ecology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ■ Starhawk (1989). Feminist earth-based spirituality and ecofeminism. In. .
Parkin, F. (1979). Marxism and das: theory: A bourgeoisie critique. }. Plant (Ed.), Healing the woundr. The promise tf ecofeminism .
London: Tavistock. •. .. (pp. 174-185). Santa Cruz, CA: New Society Publishers.
Perdue, W. D. (1986). Sociological theory. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. , Swenson, C. (1998). Clinical social work’s contribution to a social
Pincus, A,, & Minahan, A. (1973). Social work practice: Model and justice perspective. Social Work, 43(6), 527—537,
method. Itasca, IL: Peacock. ■ ' ■ Swimme, B. (1990). How to heal a iobotomy. In I, Diamond & G.
Plant, J., (Ed.). (1989). Healing the wounds: The promise of " Orcnstein (Eds.), Retreating the world: The emergence of eeafemi- .
ccofeminism. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, riism (pp, 15-22). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Piumwood, Y. (1994). EcDsodal feminism as a general theory of Tester, F. (1994). In an age of ecology: limits to voluntarism and tra-
oppression. In C. Merchant (Ed.), Key concepts in critical theory: . ditionsl theory in social work practice. In M. Koff Sc J. McNutt j ,
. Ecologyipp. 207-219). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities : (Eds.), Thsghbal environmental crisis: Implicationsfor social rod- '
■ Press. ' ' . fare and social work (pp. 75-99). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate. ■ V "
Queralt, M. (1996). The social environment and human behavior: A di- Turner, J. H. (1986). The structure of sociological theory (4th ed.).
varsity perspective. Boston: AUyri and Bacon. * Chicago: Dorsey. . . .'
Robbins, S. P., Chatteijce, & Canda, E, R. (1998). Contemporary Wakefield, J. (1996a). Does social work need the eco-systcms
human behavior theory. A critical perspective for social work . perspective? Part 1. Is the perspective clinically useful. Social
Boston: Allyn and Bacon. , ■' .. 1
■, Service Review, 70(1), 1—32. .,
Rodway, M. R. (1986). Systems theory. In F. J. Turner (Ed.), Social : Wakefield, J. (1996b) Does social work need the ecosystems peispec-
work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (pp. . :
■ tive: Part 2. Does the perspective save social work from
.- 514-539). New York: .The Erec Press. . incoherence? Social Service Review, 70{2), 183-213.
Rorty, R- (1982). Consequences of pragmatism. Minneapolis: University Warren, K. (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections. ■ ■
of Minnesota Press. ■ ■ Environmental Ethics, 9(1), 3-20. '
Rorty, E. (1985). Solidarity or objectivity? In J. Rajchman & C.Wcst ■ ■ ■ Warren, K. (1988). Toward and ecofcminist ethic. Studies in the -s
, (Eds.), Post-analytic philosophy {pp. 241-260). New York: .. Humanities, 24(4), 140—156. ■ ■
Columbia University Press. . ■ Warren, K. (1990). The power and promise of ecological feminism. . .
Roszak, T. (1993). The voice of the earth: An exploration of ecopsydiology. Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125—146. . -'
New York: Touchstone Books, Warren, K, (1994). Toward an ecofeminist peace politics. In K. Warren .
Rutther, R R (1989). Toward an ecological-feminist theology of na- ' '-(Ed.), Ecological feminism (pp, 179-199). New York: Routicdgc. =■
rare. In J. Plant (Ed.) Healing the wounds: The promise of eeofem- . Whitechurch, G. G., 8t Constantine, L. L. (1993). Systems theory. In
. inism (pp. 145—150). Santa Cruz, CA: New .Society Publishers. P. Boss (Ed.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A ■.
' Saleebcy, D. (1990). Theory and the generation and subversion of . ■ contextual approach. New York: Plenum Press. . -- ’
1
knowledge. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 17(4), •: Wood, G. G.. Sc Middleman, IL R (1989). Ttx strttctuml approach to .
112-126. . ' -■‘ , direct practice in social work. New York: Columbia University ‘
Salleh, A (1992). The ecofeminism/deep ecology debate: A reply to , Press. . . 1
’. patriarchal reason. Environmental Ethics, 14(3), 195-216- Zastrow, C., & Karst-Ashman, K. K. (1997). Understanding human ■.
Sallch, A. (1993). Class, race, and gender discourse in the ecofcini- behavior and the social environment (4th ed.). Chicago: Nelson- '
nism/deep ecology debate. Environmental Ethics, 15(3), Hall, . . .
225-244. . ■ Zimmerman, M. (1994). Contesting earths future: Radical ecology and
Sandilands, K. (1991). Ecofeminism and its discontents: Notes toward . postmodemity. Los Angeles: University of California Press,
a politics of diversity. Trumpeter, M2), 90—96.
' Sandilands, C. (1994). Political animals: The paradox of ccofeminist .
politics. Trumpeter, 11(4), 167-194. Fred H. Besttiom is assistant professor, University of Northern Iowa De-
Schriver, J. M. (1998). Human behavior and the social environment: portment of Social Work, Sabin 30, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-04051 e-mail
Shifting paradigms in essential knowledge for social work practice address not assigned at publcotion date. Diane Pearson McMillen is OS"
(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. sodate professor, Washburn University Department of Human Services, '
Sherman, N. (1987). Foundations of radical political economy. Armonk, Topeka, KS: e-mail: zzmcmi@washbum.edu
NY: M. E. Sharpe. . .

Vie
w
pub
lica
tio
n
stat
s

2
3
 Besthorn 8 McMillen • The Oppression of Women and
Nature

2
3
3
FAMILIES IN SOCIETY • Volume 83, Number 3

Vie
w
pub
lica
tio
n
stat
s

2
3