How The Ecological Art Practices Of Today Were Born In 1970s Feminism
https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/ecofeminism-women-in-environmental-art-1202688298/
Some ecofeminist writers unabashedly believe such oppression is patriarchal while others choose to imply that it is. Either way, the link being made between women and nature is evident. But while some ecofeminists view the link between woman and nature as empowering, others believe it’s imposed by patriarchy and is degrading.
Those who see the association as empowering generally assert that women are closer to nature because of their positions as mothers or homemakers. As a result, they conclude that because women take care of their families and homes, they’ll be more aware of environmental issues than men.
The people who view the association as degrading generally state that man will continue to exploit women and nature because man sees both as eternally fertile or endlessly capable of providing life [source: Sturgeon].
https://systemicalternatives.org/2016/04/26/how-ecofeminism-works/
The modern capitalist development model, based on technology and economics, insatiably drives us towards competitiveness and the search for unrestrained riches, which stems from the old desire for patriarchal power. This results in a model that at present not only punishes several groups, such as women, but also makes it unsustainable in the long term. Critical ecofeminist theory is a counterpoint to this capitalist and patriarchal model. It argues that, based on the feminist approach, elements such as the EU “precautionary principle”, freedom of choice in motherhood, food sovereignty or environmental education in childhood are the principles that guide society’s actions towards sustainable development.
An easy way to explain ecofeminism is to define it as a meeting between feminism and ecology. Today, ecofeminism is on the rise, mainly among young women, and is gradually leaving behind a long period when it was little known or poorly understood. It was believed that all forms of ecofeminist thought identified women with nature and that they were a kind of biologism…
…In its techno-scientific side, modern rationality has brought us great levels of welfare but, at present, we are discovering that it has also brought about a hitherto unseen destruction of the fabric of life that sustains us, as well as threats to the global ecosystem unsuspected until quite recently (Riechmann, 2016). Hence the development of environmental ethics as a crisis cabinet faced with what, in the field of thought, has been defined as the death of nature, according to the eloquent title of the book by Carolyn Merchant (1981). Moreover, as reduced rationality of the homo oeconomicus, it has established new forms of exploitation and inequality.
In terms of themed environmental problems, feminist thought already has a long history. For more than three decades it has accepted the challenge of reflecting on ecological crises through its own codes. The result has been the appearance of ecofeminism: an attempt to outline a new utopian horizon, addressing the environmental issue from the categories of patriarchy, androcentrism, care, sexism and gender. From its women thinkers, I have found original and highly suggestive reflections on the technological civilisation in which we live. All of them shed light on different aspects of what we can call, to allude to a classic of the hermeneutics of suspicion, a malaise in culture and nature. From my own personal and intellectual coordinates in dialogue and conflict with theirs, I have produced an ecofeminist approach that avoids calling on essentialist definitions of gender difference characteristic of the so-called “classic” female authors. Neither is it a spiritualist, Christian or neo-pagan ecofeminism for which the component of faith is necessary, something that one possesses or not, regardless of will. My proposal conserves the enlightened legacy of equality and autonomy while asserting the strong meaning of “eco”; in other words, it is not reduced to a mere anthropocentric feminist environmentalism in which relations with nature are limited to proposing good management of “resources”. The aim is to think and think of ourselves with another approach in the urgency of the times of climate change without backtracking on the path laid by feminism or abandoning the foundations that have enabled us to advance along it.
The emphasis on the identity of the woman as a mother linked to the Earth that we find in some forms of ecofeminism can involve a regression with respect to the feminist principle of motherhood as a free and personal choice. Calling for equality and self-empowerment involves promoting sexual and reproductive rights. Faced with a vague exaltation of life that hides the traditional refusal to give sexual self-empowerment to women, the critical ecofeminism I propose advocates free determination over your own body. It is important to remember that the text in which for the first time the term ecofeminism was used was a paper by Françoise d’Eaubonne published in 1974 that argued that the overpopulation of the planet, an issue of concern for ecologists, was the result of the patriarchal refusal of women’s right to decide on their own bodies. This idea has been weakened in later ecofeminist developments. Theoreticians such as María Mies (1998) even reject any technological resource as they consider it an element of domination of capitalist patriarchy. They thus return to the image of women defined by their role as mothers. Moreover, some forms of environmentalism are currently promoting an essentialist and antifeminist discourse that will probably reactivate women’s justified fear of environmentalism. On behalf of a supposed feminine nature, they call on women to give up their studies and paid work and return exclusively to taking care of children. (The Ecologist para España y Latinoamérica no. 48). This is very negative both for women and for environmentalism. I argue that, midway between the irresponsible nihilist hedonism lacking socially-spirited goals and the return to the sacralisation of the biological processes there is an alternative: the ecological awareness that preserves its full autonomy. The future of ecofeminism involves a clear stance in favour of women’s access to free decision-making on reproduction. Women must be recognised as subjects with decision-making power in demographic matters; in other words, subjects with their own life that choose if they will have children or not and, if so, when and how many to give birth to in the framework of an ecological culture of equality. This requires, on some occasions, the participation of scientific knowledge and technology.
I am not calling for a return to an idealised natural past or to put blind faith in science and technology. Critical ecofeminism is not technophobic or technomaniacal. It will require the effective fulfilment of the precautionary principle adopted by the European Union in 2002 and currently threatened by the signing of international free trade treaties such as CETA. According to the precautionary principle, when there is scientific uncertainty with regard to the risk of the irreversible harm that a new activity or product might entail for the environment or health, the principle of prudence will prevail. Thanks to the precautionary principle, it is not necessary to have conclusively shown its harmful nature to take control and preventative measures. The burden of proof falls on those who seek to introduce the new product or activity, not those potentially affected. Faced with the aims of those who prioritise gains over risks, the precautionary principle proposes transparency and democratic participation in the debate.
For an ecofeminism of materialist foundations, the problem of the technoscientific modifications of nature does not lie in the alteration of a sacred order but in the rudimentary and coarse character of current human intervention in complex systemic adaptations with a past of millions of years. Faced with the advance of what we can call “technomania”, a blind faith in technology as a magical solution for everything, we must clearly understand that technology cannot be a new idol before which we prostrate ourselves, renouncing critical thought. The “collateral damage” and the possible irreversibility of the changes introduced make us examine innovations in the light of Human Rights ‒ particularly the right to health in a healthy environment ‒, biodiversity, the suffering of other human beings and the legacy we are leaving to future generations. One of the reasons why ecology has become a feminist issue is that pollution has a particular effect on the health of women and on reproductive health. Among its effects there is the growing incidence of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS, erroneously and routinely diagnosed as an allergy), chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and the increase in breast cancer (Valls-Llobet, 2015).
We must attain the self-awareness of belonging to the fabric of the multiple and multiform life of the planet where we live. We must understand that its destruction is, in the mid or long term, ours. The technology that creates problems instead of solving them, that seeks to take possession of nature to turn it into a slave and a mere object to be bought and sold, is hybris, irrational excess, the worst of the defects for classical antiquity thinkers.
No known culture is perfect, but all can improve with intercultural learning. We must learn from the interculturalism of the whole of Latin America. Faced with an extreme multiculturalism that beatifies any practice provided it is rooted in tradition, intercultural learning enables us to compare, criticise and criticise ourselves. We must learn from sustainable cultures as an opportune corrective to our suicidal civilisation but without falling into sanctimonious admiration. We must also be able to recognise something particular of ourselves to offer to others. The aim is to construct an ecological culture of equality together rather than to revere any custom just because it is part of the cultural tradition, ours or other’s. All cultures have been and are unfair to women and non-human animals. The minimal comparison criteria I propose for the mutual intercultural assistance of ecofeminism are sustainability, human rights, with special attention to women’s rights as they are the most ignored across cultures, and the treatment of animals.
Faced with neoliberal globalisation, critical ecofeminism calls for ecojustice and sonority. We must be clear that if feminism wants to maintain its internationalist vocation, it must also think in environmentalist terms, because poor women of the so-called “South” are the first victims of the destruction of the environment aimed at producing sumptuary objects sold in the developed world. The standard of living in rich countries is not exportable to the whole planet. Natural resources are consumed without taking into account the possibility or impossibility of their renewal. Pillaging is limitless in those countries where the population lacks the political and economic power to face the destruction of their environment. Thus, for instance, the elegant teak furniture that proliferates in the furniture shops of northern countries are generally what remain of the Indonesian forests, systematically ravaged. As Vandana Shiva (1995) has rightly noted, rural women in India living in a subsistence economy have seen their quality of life tragically diminished with the arrival of “rational” exploitation aimed at the international market. If in the past they had wood next to the village, now they must walk many miles to find it. This is the modernisation that reaches them. If in the name of justice we think that the whole of humankind must have access to a decent life, this development model must change and become sustainable. Food sovereignty and agroecology have proven to be excellent travel mates of ecofeminism in the construction of this new model that not only deals with environmental balance but empowers women in their daily lives.
The ecological and social problems of our time demand the analysis and condemnation of the economic interests involved in environmental devastation. But criticism of gender identities is also necessary if we want a profound ethical political transformation that goes beyond rational management of resources. It will be necessary to reveal the androcentrism that makes the male (andros) the measure of all values. Androcentrism is a key concept to understand the ideology of dominion. The androcentric slant of culture comes from the extreme historical bipolarisation of the social roles of women and men. In the patriarchal organisation, the harshness and lack of empathy of the warrior and the hunter became the most valued while the attitudes of affection and compassion related to the daily tasks of caring for life were exclusively assigned to women and strongly underestimated. In the modern capitalist world, under the insatiable search for money and the omnipresent discourse of competitiveness, the old desire for patriarchal power beats on. Hence a critical approach to gender stereotypes is also necessary to achieve a culture of sustainability. It is not about falling into essentialisms or a discourse of praise that makes women the self-denying saviours of the ecosystem but recognising as extremely valuable the capacities and attitudes of empathy and attentive care, to also teach them from childhood to males and apply them beyond our species, to animals ‒ enslaved and exterminated on an unprecedented scale ‒ and to the Earth as a whole (Velasco Sesma, 2017). The criticism of the neoliberal development model based on market competitiveness that exploits and oppresses must also have a gender perspective.
https://www.iemed.org/publication/what-is-ecofeminism/
Both Ecofeminism and Intersectional Environmentalism explore how the treatment and degradation of the earth exposes a deeply rooted societal problem. But while Ecofeminism narrows in on gender, sexuality, and the patriarchy, Intersectional Environmentalism creates space for all social injustices, including sexism. Although prominent BIPOC women have contributed to the development of Ecofeminism, like pioneer Vandana Shiva, it didn’t always feel inclusive to me when I learned about it in my environmental science college classes.
While ecofeminists have made many connections between women and nature, the three ties that most strongly bind them are empirical, the conceptual and epistemological.
Empirical data supports the notion that women often bear the responsibility of feeding and caring for their children while maintaining a household. In poorer countries especially, these duties make women and their children more vulnerable to the effects of environmental deterioration as they desperately search for basic resources with little to no financial and communal support.
Conceptually, women are associated either culturally or symbolically with the earth:
The claim is that dualistic conceptual structures identify women with femininity, the body, Earth, sexuality and flesh: and men with masculinity, spirit, mind and power. Dualisms such as reason/emotion, mind/body, culture/nature, heaven/Earth, and man/woman converge. This implies that men have innate power over both women and nature. This dualistic structure was championed in the Greek world, perpetuated by Christianity, and reinforced later during the scientific revolution.
Finally, the epistemological connection results from the theoretical connections between women and nature; this approach suggests that because women are most adversely affected by environmental problems and generally associated with nature, they are in an epistemological privileged place.xvii This means women are in a position to facilitate the creation of practical and intellectual ecological paradigms.
The Empirical: Reproductive and Child Concerns
In addition to the social abuse and stratification women suffer under patriarchy, as sustainers/creators for/of new life and generally thought to be natural nurturers, women are more susceptible to biological problems accompanying a polluted environment.
One ecological impact on women affects child bearing. Too often, toxins in the air, soil and water have detrimental consequences for women and children; birth defects, disease, miscarriage and infertility are among the possible outcomes of a compromised environment. Furthermore, children may suffer after ingesting elevated levels of harmful chemicals such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), PBBs (polybrominated biphenyl) and dioxins in their mothers’ milk.vxiii When a woman’s body holds toxic levels of such pollutants, both she and her children are at risk and can perpetuate the problem.
Ecological impacts extend beyond childbirth and infant care. Women (particularly those in less developed countries) are often responsible for providing basic resources, like water, food, fuel and healthcare, while men move to urban settings for work. “Women in the Third World form the base of ecological activism. They are more likely than men to be tied to their living environment through a deep knowledge of plants animals and local ecology.”
Women, and subsequently children, have become the most vulnerable to ecological destruction, but they are also seen as being the closest to nature, making their love and attention towards environmental issues the most plausible solution for a better future. Recognizing these intersections makes ecofeminism a valuable lens through which to view the important connections between struggling women and children and their environments, as well as an outlet for mutual support and advocacy.
The Conceptual: The Past and Future of the Gaia Tradition
We have been taught, directly or indirectly, that human civilization is built upon a rugged and intense desire to dominate and oppress, that once “man” figured out how to domesticate plants and animals, slavery and warfare were quick to follow. However, new archeological evidence points to something contrary: “If we look closely at the new data we now have about the first agrarian or Neolithic societies, we actually see that all the basic technologies on which civilization is based were developed in societies that were not male dominated and warlike.”
Furthermore, anthropologists today commonly agree that the domestication of plants was developed by women. The ancient civilizations that humanity is built upon were not founded by war mongering and oppression, and evidence suggests that women and nature were highly regarded in many cultures. Many ancient civilizations were peaceful, and both men and women lived in harmony with one another and nature. Most notably, “the life-giving powers incarnated in women’s bodies were given the highest social value,” thus faith in the goddess and in nature was heavily prevalent in ancient civilizations, reaffirming the principle of associating women with nature. This was known as the Gaia Tradition, wherein practitioners view the earth (Gaia) as a living system designed to nurture and maintain life, and it has been part of the human faith for millennia, though these belief systems are now largely extinct.
The Epistemological: Healing a “Lobotomy”
In his essay “How to heal a lobotomy,” Brian Swimme postulates that the patriarchal mindset of modern, Western culture is comparable to a frontal lobotomy, in that by only seeing the world through a male-dominated lens, we lose touch with our surroundings and parts of our brains are rendered useless (virtually removed) from lack of use. He is a scientist attempting to change the way his field works, confessing that science – with its insistence on analysis, computation and categorization – can blind people to the whole reality.
Swimme suggests that scientific data be interpreted in a more holistic way, encompassing categorically “masculine” traits, such as logic and reason, with typically “feminine traits,” such as intuition and creativity. Swimme states:
To get knowledge of the parts, we [scientists] had to become partial. But the one-eyed vision of partial minds is exactly what is killing us. To understand the scientific facts we need the wisdom of the whole, the wisdom germane to the consciousness celebrated by ecofeminism.”
That is to say, science as we know it should not be eradicated, but people with an all-encompassing attitude toward the earth (ecofeminists, in particular) should also help interpret data and contribute to the field of science.
https://voicesforbiodiversity.org/articles/the-growing-importance-of-ecofeminism
Ecofeminism -Wikipedia
Ecofeminism is a branch of feminism that sees environmentalism, and the relationship between women and the earth, as foundational to its analysis and practice. Ecofeminist thinkers draw on the concept of gender to analyse the relationships between humans and the natural world. The term was coined by the French writer Françoise d'Eaubonne in her book Le Féminisme ou la Mort (1974). Ecofeminist theory asserts a feminist perspective of Green politics that calls for an egalitarian, collaborative society in which there is no one dominant group. Today, there are several branches of ecofeminism, with varying approaches and analyses, including liberal ecofeminism, spiritual/cultural ecofeminism, and social/socialist ecofeminism (or materialist ecofeminism). Interpretations of ecofeminism and how it might be applied to social thought include ecofeminist art, social justice and political philosophy, religion, contemporary feminism, and poetry.
Ecofeminist analysis explores the connections between women and nature in culture, economy, religion, politics, literature and iconography, and addresses the parallels between the oppression of nature and the oppression of women. These parallels include but are not limited to seeing women and nature as property, seeing men as the curators of culture and women as the curators of nature, and how men dominate women and humans dominate nature. Ecofeminism emphasizes that both women and nature must be respected.
Though the scope of ecofeminist analysis is dynamic, American author and ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak has offered one way of categorizing ecofeminist work: 1) through the study of political theory as well as history; 2) through the belief and study of nature-based religions; 3) through environmentalism...
Overview
While diverse ecofeminist perspectives have emerged from women activists and thinkers all over the world, academic studies of ecofeminism have been dominated by the North American universities. Thus, in the 1993 essay entitled "Ecofeminism: Toward Global Justice and Planetary Health" authors Greta Gaard and Lori Gruen outline what they call the "ecofeminist framework". The essay provides a wealth of data and statistics in addition to outlining the theoretical aspects of the ecofeminist critique. The framework described is intended to establish ways of viewing and understanding our current global situations so that we can better understand how we arrived at this point and what may be done to ameliorate the ills.
Building on the work of North American scholars Rosemary Ruether and Carolyn Merchant, Gaard and Gruen argue that there are four sides to this framework:
- The mechanistic materialist model of the universe that resulted from the scientific revolution and the subsequent reduction of all things into mere resources to be optimized, dead inert matter to be used.
- The rise of patriarchal religions and their establishment of gender hierarchies along with their denial of immanent divinity.
- Self and other dualisms and the inherent power and domination ethic it entails.
- Capitalism and its claimed intrinsic need for the exploitation, destruction and instrumentalization of animals, earth and people for the sole purpose of creating wealth.
They hold that these four factors have brought us to what ecofeminists see as a "separation between nature and culture" that is for them the root source of our planetary ills.
Ecofeminism developed out of anarcha-feminist concerns with abolishing all forms of domination, while focusing on the oppressive nature of humanity's relationship to the natural world. According to Françoise d'Eaubonne in her book Le Féminisme ou la Mort (1974), ecofeminism relates the oppression and domination of all marginalized groups (women, people of color, children, the poor) to the oppression and domination of nature (animals, land, water, air, etc.). In the book, the author argues that oppression, domination, exploitation, and colonization from the Western patriarchal society has directly caused irreversible environmental damage. Françoise d'Eaubonne was an activist and organizer, and her writing encouraged the eradication of all social injustice, not just injustice against women and the environment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofeminism
Deep Ecology - Wikipedia
Deep ecology is an environmental philosophy that promotes the inherent worth of all living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs, plus the restructuring of modern human societies in accordance with such ideas.
Deep ecology argues that the natural world is a complex of relationships in which the existence of organisms is dependent on the existence of others within ecosystems. It argues that non-vital human interference with or destruction of the natural world poses a threat therefore not only to humans but to all organisms constituting the natural order.
Deep ecology's core principle is the belief that the living environment as a whole should be respected and regarded as having certain basic moral and legal rights to live and flourish, independent of its instrumental benefits for human use. Deep ecology is often framed in terms of the idea of a much broader sociality; it recognizes diverse communities of life on Earth that are composed not only through biotic factors but also, where applicable, through ethical relations, that is, the valuing of other beings as more than just resources.
It is described as "deep" because it is regarded as looking more deeply into the reality of humanity's relationship with the natural world, arriving at philosophically more profound conclusions than those of mainstream environmentalism. The movement does not subscribe to anthropocentric environmentalism (which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for human purposes), since deep ecology is grounded in a different set of philosophical assumptions. Deep ecology takes a holistic view of the world human beings live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that the separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole.
The philosophy addresses core principles of different environmental and green movements and advocates a system of environmental ethics advocating wilderness preservation, non-coercive policies encouraging human population decline, and simple living…
…Deep ecologists hold that the survival of any part is dependent upon the well-being of the whole, and criticise the narrative of human supremacy, which they say has not been a feature of most cultures throughout human evolution.[6] Deep ecology presents an eco-centric (earth-centred) view, rather than the anthropocentric (human-centred) view, developed in its most recent form by philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as Newton, Bacon, and Descartes. Proponents of deep ecology oppose the narrative that man is separate from nature, is in charge of nature, or is the steward of nature,[8] or that nature exists as a resource to be freely exploited. They cite the fact that indigenous peoples under-exploited their environment and retained a sustainable society for thousands of years, as evidence that human societies are not necessarily destructive by nature. They believe a different economic system must replace capitalism, as the commodification of nature by industrial civilization, based on the concept of economic growth, or 'progress', is critically endangering the biosphere. Deep ecologists believe that the damage to natural systems sustained since the industrial revolution now threatens social collapse and possible extinction of the species…
Principles
Deep ecology proposes an embracing of ecological ideas and environmental ethics (that is, proposals about how humans should relate to nature). It is also a social movement based on a holistic vision of the world.
Deep ecologists hold that the survival of any part is dependent upon the well-being of the whole, and criticise the narrative of human supremacy, which they say has not been a feature of most cultures throughout human evolution.
Deep ecology presents an eco-centric (earth-centred) view, rather than the anthropocentric (human-centred) view, developed in its most recent form by philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as Newton, Bacon, and Descartes.
Proponents of deep ecology oppose the narrative that man is separate from nature, is in charge of nature, or is the steward of nature, or that nature exists as a resource to be freely exploited. They cite the fact that indigenous peoples under-exploited their environment and retained a sustainable society for thousands of years, as evidence that human societies are not necessarily destructive by nature.
They believe a different economic system must replace capitalism, as the commodification of nature by industrial civilization, based on the concept of economic growth, or 'progress', is critically endangering the biosphere.
Deep ecologists believe that the damage to natural systems sustained since the industrial revolution now threatens social collapse and possible extinction of the species. They are striving to bring about ideological, economic and technological change. Deep ecology claims that ecosystems can absorb damage only within certain parameters, and contends that civilization endangers the biodiversity of the earth.
Deep ecologists have suggested that the optimum human population on the earth, without fossil fuels, is 0.5 billion, but advocate a gradual decrease in population rather than any apocalyptic solution.
Deep ecology eschews traditional left wing-right wing politics, but is viewed as radical ('Deep Green') in its opposition to capitalism, and its advocacy of an ecological paradigm.
Unlike conservation, deep ecology does not advocate the controlled preservation of the landbase, but rather 'non-interference' with natural diversity except for vital needs. In citing 'humans' as being responsible for excessive environmental destruction, deep ecologists actually refer to 'humans within civilization, especially industrial civilization', accepting the fact that the vast majority of humans who have ever lived did not live in environmentally destructive societies – the excessive damage to the biosphere has been sustained mostly over the past hundred years.
In 1985, Bill Devall and George Sessions summed up their understanding of the concept of deep ecology with the following eight points:
- The well-being of human and nonhuman life on earth is of intrinsic value irrespective of its value to humans.
- The diversity of life-forms is part of this value.
- Humans have no right to reduce this diversity except to satisfy vital human needs
- The flourishing of human and nonhuman life is compatible with a substantial decrease in human population.
- Humans have interfered with nature to a critical level already, and interference is worsening.
- Policies must be changed, affecting current economic, technological and ideological structures.
- This ideological change should focus on an appreciation of the quality of life rather than adhering to an increasingly high standard of living.
- All those who agree with the above tenets have an obligation to implement them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology
Introduction To Deep Ecology - A new way to think about our relationship to the Earth. An Interview With Michael E. Zimmerman, by Alan AtKisson Copyright (c)1989, 1997 by Context Institute
Alan: What is "deep ecology?"
Michael: Deep ecology is an environmental movement initiated by a Norwegian philosopher, Arnie Naess, in 1972. He wasn’t the first to dream up the idea of a radical change in humanity’s relationship to nature, but he coined the term "deep ecology" and helped to give it a theoretical foundation. Deep ecology portrays itself as "deep" because it asks deeper questions about the place of human life, who we are.
Deep ecology is founded on two basic principles: one is a scientific insight into the interrelatedness of all systems of life on Earth, together with the idea that anthropocentrism – human-centeredness – is a misguided way of seeing things. Deep ecologists say that an ecocentric attitude is more consistent with the truth about the nature of life on Earth. Instead of regarding humans as something completely unique or chosen by God, they see us as integral threads in the fabric of life. They believe we need to develop a less dominating and aggressive posture towards the Earth if we and the planet are to survive.
The second component of deep ecology is what Arnie Naess calls the need for human self-realization. Instead of identifying with our egos or our immediate families, we would learn to identify with trees and animals and plants, indeed the whole ecosphere. This would involve a pretty radical change of consciousness, but it would make our behavior more consistent with what science tells us is necessary for the well-being of life on Earth. We just wouldn’t do certain things that damage the planet, just as you wouldn’t cut off your own finger.
Alan: How does deep ecology relate to ecofeminism? Or do they relate?
Michael: There are many ecofeminists – people like Joanna Macy for example – who would call themselves deep ecologists, but there are some ecofeminists who’ve made an important claim against it. They say the real problem isn’t anthropocentrism but androcentrism – man-centeredness. They say that 10,000 years of patriarchy is ultimately responsible for the destruction of the biosphere and the development of authoritarian practices, both socially and environmentally.
Deep ecologists concede that patriarchy has been responsible for a lot of violence against women and nature. But while they oppose the oppression of women and promote egalitarian social relations, deep ecologists also warn that getting rid of patriarchy would not necessarily cure the problem, because you can imagine a society with fairly egalitarian social relationships where nature is still used instrumentally.
Alan: And then there’s a third big player on the scene, "social ecology," with its own critique of deep ecology.
Michael: Right. According to social ecologist Murray Bookchin, deep ecology fails to see that the problem of the environmental crisis is directly linked to authoritarianism and hierarchy. Bookchin says those are the real problems, and they’re expressed both socially and environmentally.
Alan: So social ecologists see things like homelessness as being caused by the same mechanisms that cause rainforest devastation?
Michael: Also racism, sexism, third world exploitation, mistreatment of other marginalized groups – they’re all phenomena on the same spectrum. By supposedly not recognizing the social roots of the environmental crisis, deep ecologists invite themselves to be accused of nature mysticism. Social ecologists say we need to change our social structure, and that the elimination of authoritarianism and hierarchy in human society will end the environmental crisis.
Deep ecologists say there’s no certainty that would happen. Again, you can imagine a case where social hierarchy is eliminated and yet the new egalitarian society dominates nature just as badly. The problem is that anthropocentrism can take on different forms.
Alan: So what’s their political agenda? What, in practicality, do deep ecologists want?
Michael: That’s an interesting question, because I don’t think anyone knows what the best political vehicle is for this new way of thinking. Certainly the old ideologies of left and right are pretty bankrupt, in terms of their ability to address these issues.
Critics have latched onto the fact that on one or two occasions, certain deep ecologists have called for very Draconian measures to save the planet from destruction at the hands of human beings. The danger that social ecologists and others see is that what these deep ecologists envision will become a new kind of a totalitarianism or "eco-fascism" – in other words, some kind of world government which would compel people to change their social practices and totally control their behavior to make it consistent with the demands of the ecosphere.
But most deep ecologists talk about the need for decentralization, bioregions, the breakdown of the totalizing impulse of industrialism, an end to authoritarianism, and the development of a much more fragmented society with new kinds of relationships. This seems far closer to the truth about deep ecology, and none of it seems consistent with the possibility of totalitarianism...
http://www.context.org/iclib/ic22/zimmrman/
left off
