Political Ethnography

Prof. Dr. Karen Büsche

Ludmilla Roulet (02011893)

Universalism in ecofeminism, rejection of intersectionality in

Francophone academic discourse and its interpersonal power
implication.
Introduction
Second-wave feminists and third-wave feminists collide on several topics, from sex work, gender
essentialism or convergence of struggles, a lot of things distinguish them. Yet, while third-wave
feminism often aims to be more inclusive, intersectional in its approach and everyday
implementation, it faces the deceiving truth that it also reproduces what inequalities its ambition is
to deconstruct.

This paper will discuss the reproduction of power dynamics in feminist movements as a ‘mise en
abyme’ or reproduction of its precise critique: Oppressions. Following Foucault’s idea that power is
everywhere, I will dig into its manifestation in activism, more specifically in a zoom conference on
‘ecofeminism as a way out of capitalism’. Nowadays, the popular commitment is at breaking power
dynamics with main practical tools of ‘leave the words to those concerned’.

Lastly, it will note how digitalisation reinforces bureaucratic organisation of activism and thereby
depriving us of organic interactions.

Methods & positionality

As a chronically ill person during a pandemic, I was afraid for my fields’ possibilities to be limited,
as I could not exactly go and take part in a mass event as I wished. On the contrary, this global
situation offered me more opportunities. Indeed, everybody being in the same boat, online events
became the norm. While some events would otherwise have been too tiring (either in themselves or
to get there) for me to attend, I could now participate in them1

In 2019, I had the opportunity to spend one year in a ‘convergent’ feminist community. Less than
few months had been enough for me and the other least privileged person of the community to
realise it was not what it claimed. The violent dynamics, bringing us to tears every week,
confronted me with the reproduction of inequalities.

As a young queer disabled white person, recently but quite vividly introduced to third wave
feminism, I am quite accustomed to this kind of falsely informal event, whose customs I understand
from having participated in or organized several ones. While one might think it would lead to a
smooth interaction, my strong beliefs in intersectionality, that I would attribute to some ‘lack of
privileges’, do not fit the upper-class, strongly formal setting. In truth, my reluctance to hierarchise
sexism and racism above other discriminations led me to some peculiar frictions in the
« conversation ».

Contextualization:
Ecofeminism, now composed of several branches, first arose in 1970s, its first appearance
commonly attributed to ‘Le Féminisme ou la Mort (1974) [11]’ from Françoise d'Eaubonne, one of
its most famous spokespersons is now Vandana Shiva. Ecofeminism builds on the connection
between women and nature and their exploitation, intending to reach a society with no more
domination.

As the ‘capitalism museum’ settles down in Charleroi, the opening is inaugurated with an online
conference about ‘Ecofeminism as a way out of capitalism’ with invited guests Pascale Vielle (law
teacher at Université Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve) and Florence Vierendeel (analyst for
1
This supports reproduction of power dynamics / lack of claimed inclusivity, as activist scene is
often exclusionist by neglect.
‘Femmes prévoyantes socialistes’, later referred as FPS) analysist in the transversal topics of
environment, violence towards women or political analysis from gender perspective. These are (part
of) the information that could be found on the Facebook event’s description.

The museum, for its part, is a itinerant exposition on our current economic and cultural model,
capitalism. It aspires to create reflexions and space for debate, as well as promoting active
citizenship. It claims its non-partisan political engagement.
Thick description
The conference took place on zoom, planned to start at 18h. There were 15 people online when I
joined, at 17h50. Some polite and rather formal conversations took place among participants that
did not seem to know each other. Only 5 cameras were on, among which the 3 speakers. In the
background, noises from their respective everyday life could be heard (advertisement on TV,
relatives talking, a crying baby, …) as everyone was going about their business.

At 18h we reached 30 participants and the organizer remarked ‘that’s already a lot’ before saying
we would start at 18h10 ‘to enable everyone to join’. The Facebook event (the only place where the
link for the zoom conference could be found) counted 527 ‘interested’2 people and 84 ‘a’.

The visible participants were all white and mostly comprised women or feminine-presenting people
between 20 and 60 years old. They were settled in well-lit rooms and wore headphones.

With 55 participants, the meeting officially started at 18h10 by an introduction from the responsible
of the anti-capitalism Museum about their activities and upcoming events. She informed us that the
meeting would be recorded and explained how the conference aimed to be an interactive informal
discussion to ‘share and discuss’ ideas but would first be introduced by two 20 minutes’
presentations on ecofeminism from the 2 stakeholders.

These presentations were themselves to be preceded by introducing the speakers. Which mostly
consisted on citing her profession and activist implications on the university teacher side while the
FPS’ representative focused on a read description about their structure.

Speakers talked freely about inner states and feelings. They expressed tiredness, how glad they were
to be here, … Looking at the participants, I could see them paying attention and attendees in their
twenties were taking notes.

The first talk was given by the law teacher. Behind her, we could see an imposing painting above
the fireplace. One the flange were books, pictures as well as black statues that seemed like
aborigines’ sub-Saharan Africa craft or having such inspiration.
She began by emphasising that she was ‘invited to give a talk’ as well as stressing questions she was
often ‘asked about’. She used well-known concepts such as progress and reminded us how it is
perceived: as self-evident, not questionable.

The presentation was later supported by a screenshared Powerpoint. Her talk would take into
account social classes, word-wide impact, and sexism. She stated how productivism is based on
exploitation of women, global south and nature. She explained that ecofeminism is a practical tool
(in opposition to feminist theories) to revalorize the devalued values, the exploited. She briefly
mentioned convergence of struggles.

As the precise 20 minutes of presentation got to an end, she finished, and Florence took over. She
was speaking faster than her predecessor, lisping a bit. She talked less about herself and more about
the FPS role of ongoing education. As she said, she was less formal and intended to vulgarize. Her
speech was not as full of imagery but had more substance.

She explained that they were several separate strands in ecofeminism. She told us about two of
them: the economical and the spiritual. The first acknowleging the exploitation of women and
nature with Shiva Vandana as one of the founders; the later focussing on women’s body re-
2
Facebooks allow for two kind of visible engagement to an event: Either ‘interested’ or
‘participating’.
appropriation. She followed by refuting the common ecofeminism’s critique: Essentialism. their
arguments was that women can better understand nature’s oppression, not because women are
mythically connected to nature, but because they also experience oppression.

She then insisted on the distinction between ecofeminism and traditional socialism. The later,
focussing on creating more wealth in order to have more to redistribute, while ecofeminism is based
on degrowth, on simple living. She then went on about practical actions; the aim of ecofeminism.
One of them being gender mainstreaming: incorporating a gendered approach to all political
decisions.

As the conference continued, the participants with activated camera could be seen as more tired,
and showed less dynamism (less nodding, or staring).

Up to then, there had been no interactions whatsoever among participants nor questions to the
stakeholders. Though said to aim at initiating conversation, the first hour was so frontal it could
have been called a lecture. The only few questions on the chat, asked by men, concerned
practicalities (where to find resources about the talk).

At 19h08, Florence was almost done ‘but would finish’. Between that time and the end of her talk,
at 19h12, Madame Vielle could be seen yawning, open-mouthed.

She concluded by evoking convergence of struggles against patriarchy and capitalism: « we must
address all kinds of discriminations ».

This particular last sentence marked me. As the discussion went on, I noticed that only racism,
sexism and capitalism were cited when intersectionality was mentioned. .
Surprised that no mention of other oppressions was made, I could not help wondering whether or
how could ecofeminism bring more intersectionality on the table. I had decided to bring that up
when participants would be ‘allowed to talk’ (as we kept silent while the stakeholders spoke).

One of the organizers then informed us we could ask questions.

The first one was asked by a woman with a foreign accent (camera not activated) and was around
one sentence long. Madame Vielle volunteered to answer, she developed her point for 5 minutes.
The asker elaborated / corrected her point very briefly before Mrs Vielle would take over again,
with a patronizing tone. She was leaning her head on her hand. Florence further answered, giving
another point of view on the matter. Then came Sarah’s answer.

As the second question was asked (by a white woman in her early twenties, who was previously
taking notes), a pattern (to be followed till the end) emerged: Mrs Vielle would answer at length,
followed by Florence and then came Colinne or Sarah (the organizers).

The third inquiry, asked by a black woman also in her early twenties, raised the issue of the lack of
intersectionality in ecofeminism. Mrs Vielle answered, tense, that: « Identity struggles fragment and
turn the movement into something illegible », followed by « Me, I tried to give you a summary ».

As the question could have been reworded as ‘do we take intersectionality into account into
ecofeminism?’ I seized the opportunity to ask stressfully whether ecofeminism in itself theorised
that tackling capitalism, sexism and global south/north dynamic was sufficient to ‘free us all’ or,
said otherwise, reach a more egalitarian society for everyone? Would we not create another
oppressive system if we only focused on dismantling the one we currently live in, occulting parts of
its implications?
Mrs Vielle, for the most part, repeated her previous answer, adding that, indeed, there’s no Marxing
readings in ecofeminism, agreeing that taking into account class struggles would be needed.
Florence agreed, saying however that class conflict wasn’t a priority.

Overall, there had been up to then, no interactions among participants; only between them and
organizers. After my question, someone shared for my benefit a link on queer-ecofeminism in the
chat.

The next question was asked by a white man, mid-fifties, beginning by stating how humbling it was
to feel uneasy, as a white, upper-class, old man, to ask a question in front of (mostly) women. He
was wondering whether men were excluded of the movement since there’s ‘feminism’ in
‘ecofeminism’ and that sorority felt excluding.

Mrs Vielle simply answered it didn’t, Florence topped it by saying that equality was needed for both
women and men. Colinne concluded on a more radical note « we always put men first, shit, we can
for once put women first. That isn’t excluding them’.

As I did not feel we had reached the end of the intersectionality argument, and was quite annoyed
that we talked more about whether men were being excluded (and it did seem important for the
stakeholders to clarify that they were not) than whether we were not forgetting elements in our
analysis, I asked, bouncing back on previous question :

« If (eco)feminism is not excluding men but is actually needed for everyone, as equality will
improve society as a whole. Then why would intersectional (eco)feminism not be seen as such ?
Since an intersection movement is needed for everyone, even straight, thin, upper-class, abled
women: Equality for everybody would lead to global improvement ? Are we not talking from a
place of privilege when we can simply overlook such struggles? »

Mrs Vielle asnwered: « No,no,no,no. Wait. » with a condescending tone. She sighed.

As I tried to make my point, and tried to take a fraction of conversation-space, up to now

monopolised by Mrs Vielle, I was, twice, interrupted by her.
My point was that though, for instance, fat people might not be exploited in a materialistic way,
their very existence might be, in a identitarian way.
At that moment she raised her voice and criticized ‘disincarnated feminism’. Her face showed
visible anger and sorrow as she affirmed it was not a privileged feminism, because women are
making invisible work. That, no, fat people weren’t exploited, sex workers are exploited by
patriarchy (disregarding any specific concern they might be facing, so that their struggles only come
from the woman’s condition).

Florence completed by ‘ecofeminism is a practical tool and can’t be theorised.

It was almost 20h and Mrs Vielle intimated that we should conclude. A few seconds before being
‘removed’ from the meeting, I saw a private message from the ‘old white upper-class man’ (who
had asked a question). He was telling me that he shared my concern but did not dare make a
statement, too afraid of male discredit.
Analysis ~ Silencing the unheard

Performed class privilege

There were enlightening differences between speakers, the way they were addressed, their
behaviour.
The most striking power dynamic was class hierarchy and its structural implications. Indeed
Mrs Vielle monopolised the space, and showed markers of higher status. Not only was she the only
person addressed by her surname but she also corrected its pronunciation 3. She naturally took the
floor to answer questions (not leaving much space to other stakeholders or for more horizontal
reactions). Her calmer tone, self-evident statements and more elaborated discourse contrasted with
factual information read by Florence. Mrs Vielle talked about herself, her achievements and eminent
colleagues, took more liberty to digress. She used more marked constructions and was more
articulate (discourse markers, linguistic forms, register reflecting her upper class status
(Sanders[26])), as Florence talked, she yawned ostensibly (non-verbal). This behaviour contrasted
with the casual tone employed by Florence who moreover justified the issues brought to the table.

Both gives us a good example of performative (class) identity (extrapolating from J. Buttler [6]),
that can be linked to the following « As a dimension of the self, social class is associated with
« particular patterns of interaction with the social world (Greenwald et al., 2002; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991, 2010). If social class is associated with predictable patterns of behavior,
individuals may rely on these patterns to infer others’ social class. These inferences may, in turn,
guide how individuals act towards others. Organization members may act differently when they
perceive that their interaction partner possesses considerable rather than limited material
resources. » (Côté[8])

On idealist universal egalitarian society

To justify their lack of intersectionality beyond gender, race and environment, they argued that an
egalitarian ideal, non oppressive, would lead to universal equality. To this argument, silencing
minorities for the ‘greater good’, I would oppose the following :
« Donna Haraway (1988) caricatures the epistemological fetish with detachment as a ‘God trick …
that mode of seeing that pretends to offer a vision that is from everywhere and nowhere, equally and
fully » (584). Such narrative removal seeks to front universal truths while denying the privileges
interests, and politics of researchers. » (Gitlin [14])

Some other statements made by stakeholders further diverge from intersectionality, falling back on
more universalist considerations. Indeed, they mentioned women’s invisible work, they used the
example of a family caregiver taking care of a disabled person. Here Florence condemned sexism
by further dehumanizing disabled struggles, completely occulting the reality that the very existence
of ‘family members becoming caregivers’ is the proof of a lack of correct societal handling, to meet
(the) basic needs of the disabled. In answer to my question Mrs Vielle also spoke her mind, briefly
stating that sex-workers are oppressed by patriarchy, something often heard by second wave
abolitionist feminists, in strong contradiction with the belief that women should decide what to do
with their bodies (Scoular [28]).

On reproduction of power dynamics

As already described above, there is a fierce belief in the rightfulness of their approach, as showed
Mrs Vielle’s anger when I asked if our opportunity to debate such concepts as well as the lack of
diversity of the event wasn’t a sign of privileged feminism. Structural organisations that arose are
3
Close to ‘old’ in French, it could be interpreted as some form of internalised agism as one doesn’t want to be called
‘old’
symptoms of their refuted privileges. The way out, ‘excavat(e) our own culture in order to open a
free space for innovation and creativity’ (Foucault, 1988, p. 163 [11]) , isn’t as easy as it seems. It
might even be thought of as an inevitable « continuous and omnipresent possibility for its
reconstruction. ». « If such a categorical system of symbolic boundaries has been essential to the
construction and legitimation of such inequalities, then it follows that the cultural contestation of
such boundaries has been essential to every effort to overcome them. It is my central contention that
the language of civil society, the content and the structure of its binary discourse, is relatively
unchanging. The signifiers of civil society do not shift. What changes is the signifieds, the social
entities conceived as embodying the pure and impure symbolic representations. To put this in a
slightly enigmatic manner, what we have here is ‘stable signifiers, shifting signifieds.’ ». Though I
do not purport to give a solution to this eternal reproduction, I believe acknowledgment is always
the first step to further investigation. (Alexander [2])

Another means to understand what happened is the concept of interpersonal power :

« [It] considers that each of us experiences varying amounts of both privilege and oppression
(Collins, 2008). Furthermore, because many fail to recognize the influence of their identity (and the
matrices of power tied to their positionality within particular social contexts), we must each
consciously and activily engage in changing our everyday relations »(Pérez [24]). What happens
when we fail to acknowledge our positionality, as manifest here, is reproduction in daily relations,
of damageable powerful relations.

That is why their other argument for lack of intersectionality ; “ecofeminism is a field-tool, not a
theory”, is not valid either. Indeed : ‘No gap exists between theory and practice. Indeed, what such
experience make more evident is the bond between the two, that ultimately reciprocal process
wherein one enables the other » (Hooks  [16])

Bureaucracy
Finally, I would like to make a note on group organisation in online events. Indeed while the
introduction declared aiming at informal interaction and discussion among participants, it was clear
by the end that authority should not be questioned and that the discussion was not one, and
questions were interpreted as requests for clarification.

I believe this only magnifies what has already been observed in ‘physical’ events, that is: The
normative bureaucratic organization, as exemplified by specialisation (effective distinction between
speakers and ignorants), hierarchy and control (speech management, enforced end to the meeting),
rules and regulations (when to ask questions, who talked first), formal communication (mostly
enhanced by the university professor) (Plummer [25]).
Indeed it has already been noted that « SMOs [social movement organisations] have been accused
of producing a political activism that is highly efficient in its reach, yet arguably superficial in
depth: a ‘bureaucratized’ form of activism. »(Hensby [15]), depicting the inherent group
organization that arose in SMO. That leaves the impact of such organization open to critique on the
kind of social change that can be reached with it.
Undeniably, we were deprived of any informal, out of ‘authority’s’ sight interaction. The kind of
‘getting to know each other’ that arises before a physical meeting, as you sit next to someone, get a
coffee together or have to ask practical questions (where could I find the toilets ? Is this seat free ?
…). Digitalisation enforces hierarchy, control and formal communication.
Conclusion
As others already pointed out (Kings [19]), ecofeminism fails to fulfil its intersectional effective
commitment by narrowing its narrative to patriarchy and capitalism. Practical implementation of
intersectionality (Walker [30]) could be used to move beyond this and shows how intersectionality
is also a praxis and a bridge from theory to practice.

Secondly, I saw how escaping social construction is not always as easy as it seems, as though the
signifieds oppressed might change, the signifiers, i.e. the dynamic at stake might reconstructs itself.

Structure is central to understand group dynamic and « Hegemonic feminism, the personal is
political and global sisterhood, intersectional feminist frameworks provide us with a deeper and
more complete framework to expose such ideologies' reinforcement of power relations both within
society as well as within organizations » (Bunjun [3]), based on that it would be interesting to
explore whether collective / anarchist (in opposition to bureaucratic) structure would better tackle
interpersonal impact of (external / internal) power dynamics (above seen in hegemonic feminism) ,
intersectionality might help us out off Bureaucracy.
Bibliography
[1] Adams, R., Dominelli, L., & Payne, M. (1998). Social Work. New York, United States:
Macmillan Publishers.
[2] Alexander, J. C. (2007). The Meaningful Construction of Inequality and the Struggles Against It:

A ‘Strong Program’ Approach to How Social Boundaries Change. Cultural Sociology, 1(1),

23–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1749975507073915

[3] Bunjun B. (2010) Feminist Organizations and Intersectionality: Contesting Hegemonic

Feminism , Atlantis 34.2

[4] Bilge, S. (2010). De l’analogie à l’articulation : théoriser la différenciation sociale et l’inégalité

complexe. L’Homme et La Société, 176–177(2), 43. https://doi.org/10.3917/lhs.176.0043

[5] Bilge, S. (2013). INTERSECTIONALITY UNDONE. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research

on Race, 10(2), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1742058x13000283

[6] Butler, J. (2006). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Routledge Classics)

(1st ed.). New-York, USA: Routledge.

[7] Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: A

Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of Inequalities.

Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.x

[8] Côté, S. (2011a). How social class shapes thoughts and actions in organizations. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 31, 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.004

[9] Davis, D. & Craven The College of Wooster, Christa. (2016). Feminist Ethnography: Thinking

through Methodologies, Challenges, and Possibilities (Reprint ed.). London, UK: Rowman

& Littlefield Publishers.

[10] Davis, D.-A., & Craven, C. (2011). Revisiting Feminist Ethnography: Methods and Activism at

the Intersection of Neoliberal Policy. Feminist Formations, 23(2), 190–208.

https://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2011.0018
[11] D’Eaubonne, F., Bahaffou, M., & Gorecki, J. (2020). Le féminisme ou la mort (BOOMERANG)

(French Edition). Paris, France: CLANDESTIN.

[12] Figueiredo, D. (2010). Context, register and genre: Implications for language education.

Revista Signos, 43, 119–141. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-09342010000300008

[13] Foucault, M. (1988). [Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault] [By: Michel

Foucault] [January, 1988]. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press.

[14] Gitlin, A. (1994). Power and Method: Political Activism and Educational Research (Critical

Social Thought). New-York, USA: Routledge.

[15] Hensby, A., Sibthorpe, J., & Driver, S. (2011). Resisting the ‘protest business’: Bureaucracy,

post-bureaucracy and active membership in social movement organizations. Organization,

19(6), 809–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411423697

[16] Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom (Harvest in

Translation). New-York, USA: Routledge.

[17] Jorgensen, M. W., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method (First ed.).

London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

[18] Kerner, I. (2016). Relations of difference: Power and inequality in intersectional and

postcolonial feminist theories. Current Sociology, 65(6), 846–866.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116665152

[19] A.E. Kings. (2017). Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism. Ethics and the

Environment, 22(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.1.04

[20] McNay, L. (1992b). Foucault and Feminism: Power, Gender and the Self (1st ed.). Oxford,

UK: Polity.
[21] Moradi, B., & Grzanka, P. R. (2017). Using intersectionality responsibly: Toward critical

epistemology, structural analysis, and social justice activism. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 64(5), 500–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000203

[22] Naples, N. A., & Bojar, K. (2002). Teaching Feminist Activism: Strategies from the Field (1st

ed.). New-York, USA: Routledge.

[23] Naples, N. A., & Sachs, C. (2009). Standpoint Epistemology and the Uses of Self-Reflection in

Feminist Ethnography: Lessons for Rural Sociology*. Rural Sociology, 65(2), 194–214.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00025.x

[24] Pérez, M. S., & Williams, E. (2014). Black Feminist Activism: Theory as Generating

Collective Resistance. Multicultural Perspectives, 16(3), 125–132.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2014.922883

[25] Plummer, K. Macionis. J. |. (2021). Sociology: A Global Introduction 5th edition by Macionis,

John J., Plummer, Ken (2012) Paperback (5th ed.). London, UK: Pearson Education

Limited.

[26] Sanders, M. R., & Mahalingam, R. (2012). Under the Radar: The Role of Invisible Discourse

in Understanding Class-Based Privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 112–127.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01739.x

[27] Schwalbe, M., Godwin, S., Holden, D., Schrock, D., Thompson, S., & Wolkomir, M. (2000).

Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis. Social

Forces, 79(2), 419. https://doi.org/10.2307/2675505

[28] Scoular, J. (2004). The “subject” of prostitution: Interpreting the discursive, symbolic and

material position of sex/work in feminist theory. Feminist Theory, 5(3), 343–355.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700104046983
[29] Walby, S., Armstrong, J., & Strid, S. (2012). Intersectionality: Multiple Inequalities in Social

Theory. Sociology, 46(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511416164

[30] Walker, T. J., & Muñoz Rojas, L. A. (2020). Teaching and Gaining a Voice: A Rhetorical

Intersectionality Approach to Pedagogy of Feminist Organizational Communication.

Management Communication Quarterly, 089331892097269.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318920972692
Annex

Raw field notes FB event – 10 november 2020

18h10 : présentation musée du capitalisme

(pas de présentation de chacun), on prévient qu’on est enregistré, on peut couper sa cam si on veut,
pas de réaction suite à cela
MC:musée cap.
MC : expo utinérante, mieux visite guidée, on peut devenir guide (il reste des places en février)
différente rencontres à thème en lien avec le capitalisme : covid, … , écoféminisme, 3
dominations.

Partager et discuter (pour l’instant surtout elle qui parle), 2x 20min des intervenantes, puis
intervenir.

Parler par l’outil « lever la main’ » de zoom. On demande comment faire et direct qq dit comment
faire. Sinon utiliser le chat.

Coline et sarah : présente les intervenantes. Ne pas dépasser 20h/19h45. ‘bonne soirée’
Colinne : sombre, vérifie qu’on l’entend bien. Présente ‘Pascale veille’. Passe Vielle : correction de
la prononciation du nom. Prf de droit ucl …
Colinne : mal éclairée, cernes, petit zozotement. Lit un texte.

Sarah FPS : on l’ented mal (on lui fait remarqué : elle laisse donc florence se préesnter, puis sourit
‘à tout l’heure), elle lit un texte, parle doucement de manière un peu achée

Madame veille : ‘on m’a demandé de vous parler’ → invitée++

MouvenmentS écofem : insite sur les différents mouvements, de l’art et chose abstraite à des choses
concrètes mais caractéristiques communes.
(tjs 55 participants)

‘on me demande’ : écofem et capitalisme. Rappel qu’elle est juriste et pads économiste. Plutot parle
de productivisme que de capitalisme

‘Je suis super contente d’intervenir dans le cadre du futur lancement du MC à charleroie’

Plusieurs personnes prennent des notes (femme jeunes autour de 25 ans), les autres ont l’air
concentré (yeux fixent sur l’écran)

V.ucl : parle devant une peinture impostante, devant la cheminée, des statues de personnes noires
sont visibles (elle est blanche), ainsi que des livres et un photo d’un homme assez agé. Parle
du progrès, ça va de soit, on ne questionne pas .
Partage d’écran : power point. crise environnementale : affecte toute les calsses (inégalement), les
bien premier, toute la planète, agrave : épidémie, extreme pauvereté, immigration, …
évoque théorie complot.

Covid, les Scienfiques : non respect de l’habitat humain. (authorité)

Europe est assez peu importante dans cela (moi :prend on en compte l’exploitation indirecte souvent
non compté ? Exportation des déchets, …) . Elle dit que c’est discutable.

Productivisme : exploitation des femmes, du sud, la nature. (moi : donc on prend en compte l’éco,
le racisme et les femmes, n’est-ce pas une vision peu nuancé / trop simplifiée ? Pas de
convergence des luttes ? Et le travail des handis, des gros ? Les autres opprimés ne sont-il
pas exploités par justification de leur exclusion?)

colonialisme économique et culuturel (moi : pourtant on ne critique pas comment on produit

indirectment plein de CO2 par la chine, les usa, …). Exploitation par paires de ce qui est
dévalorisé. Réhabiliter toues les valeurs dévalorisée, par pour les femmes mais pour
l’égalité.

V.UCL : je suis très fatiguée (ok parler des émotions)

moi :on est majoritairement blanc.hes ici : comment peut- on opposer ou inclure l’éco-féminisme
dans la convergence des luttes ? Les autres oppresions sont-elles oubliés ou l’idée est-elle
que si le patriarcat capitalise tombe les autres ne seront plus oppressé ? Y a-t-il des théorie
globale (incluant le tout, ex : lutte convergentes ? Ou meême cela ne l’est pas? Est-ce que la
convergence n’est pas plus globale, englobant justement le patriarcat, sans faire passer les
 femmes, les personnes noires et la nature avant d’autre lutte ? Ou celle-là ont-elle plus
d’importance ? Pourquoi ?)

CHAT : homme posent question et écrivent, organistrices réponde. Femmes réponde au question de
la présentatrice. (On voit donc même dans le chat l’exploitation du travail des femmes?)

Discussion des sorcières = femmes de sciences. Capitalisme s’accapare le savoir et l’institutionalise.

Donc cap. Se base de séparation des femmmes de la terre et…

Récit de la génèse

moi, suite :éco féminisme n’est-ce pas une version ‘néo’ / ‘moderne’ de ‘white féminisme’ en
rapport au fem convergent. Car on voit ici des idée de génèse (religion majoritaire?) et un
public blanc, et une volonté (focaliser) sur retrouver ce que les femmes blanches azvaient,
tout en leur donnant bonne conscience par rapport à la nature et l’exploitation des autres,
mais sans vraiment le questionner en profondeur ?

Domination ‘inscrite dans nos inconsients’

Starock, vandanshiva (indienne) (check ces noms)

Moi :Ou un écoféminisme localisé donc un dé-globalisation des luttes ? (moi : n’est pas nier les
différences de pouvoirs nord / sud, que de laisser les personnes du sud se déboruiller alors
qu’on les a appauvrit et continue de les exploiter ? Que faire si on ne veut pas néo-coloniser
en aidant mais négliger ne les laissant se démerder?)

moi : classe sociale haute, encore des académique. Fracture des classes dans les luttes.

Elle parle de Joanne … future docteur honoris causa. ‘luttes frontières’ (pas très clair) : regroupe les
3 luttes (fem. Éco. Colonialisme) : indisociable (moi mais les autres personnes opprimés
pas ?? ). Parle de convergence des luttes et reconnaissance de combats situés.

Moi :Vouloir utiliser la globalité, n’est-ce pas un arguments pour continuer d’exploiter / de silencier
des gens pour un le ‘greater good’, sacrifié certaines thématiques.

Florence : (zozote aussi) complémentaire à vieille ? Travail dans l’associatif (femme prévoyantes
socialiste : mouvement d’éducation permanentes féministe , progressiste, de gauche et
mutualiste) reconnu dans l’éducation permanente : association, sensibilisation,
prévention…, wallonie bruxelles,… historique (bientôt 100ans).
Genrée et … de l’écoféminisme pour sortie du capitalisme
Parle vite, moins d’elle / moins protocolaire mais plus vulgarisateur (comme elle dit souhaité l’être),
moi de mise en scène / mis een avant, beaucoup de contenu dans ce qu’elle dit.

Écologie : thématique de plus en plus importante.

Power point / présentation plus interactive / vulgarisatrice. Justifie les questions ammenées (justifie
le besoin de parler d’écologie) (moi : habitude d’être remise en question ? Car classe sociale
moins elevé ou cadre : associatif et pas académique)

éco fem :théorisée des années 70 (intellectuel) mais également project d’action (moi : quel aautre
mouvement projet d’action plus globale) .

Pas unifié : différents courant (mais on ne parle pas trop des quels, juste elles disent sur quoi elle se
basent)

éco fem : socio éco et éco spirituel

[note : tempes de v.ucl respecté = 20min]

1 Vandana shiva et Maria Mies, livre ‘écoféminism’, exploitation nature et femmes (socio
écoféminis)

2 crise sprituel : starhawk : rêve obscure. Ré-appropriation par les femmes de leurs corps (moi
spirituel occidental ? Car occidents déconnecté de la religion ?)

critique courante : (!) : démentie par les ecofems. : essentialisme (les femmes sont prévues pour
faire des rapports équilibrés)

(moi :comme les vague féministe actuel : ) les femmes peuvent mieux comprendre l’oppression de
la nature car elles sont également opprimé. Mais elles peuvent opprimer aussi car elle sont
éduquer au capitalisme. Conclusion : question de valeur.

Par contre ! Elle s’investissent d’avantage . Raisons : 1) lié au care = sphère familiale et du bien être
du foyer = (dans la société) aux femmes. 2) changements climatique d’avantages les femmes
( plus impactés, plus de stress car dispense les soins, moins de repos, …).

Pas sûr que la parité mène au dimensselement du capitalisme.

[public : beaucoup moin dynamique, plus endormie / fatigué]

éco-socialisme : rupture avec le socialisme traditionnel (= + de richesse = + de gateau à partager,

mais ‘est capitaliste). 9 axes majeurs :

[comme pour tous autres événements en ligne : pas d’intéractions entre les participantes en petit
groupe possible, pas possible de faire des lien / discussion à 2-3, de poser des questions
personelles, on est dans des intéractions observés par le reste du groupe en permanence,
(moi : en quoi cela change-t-il l’éthnographie (pauvre observations ? Ou observations de
pauvres interractions socioalge de cette période) et les données récoltés), comment le fait
d’être en ligne change le public : accessible à des personnes qui ne l’étaient pas avant :
mobilité réduite, fatigue, enfants, … mais pas à d’autres : mauvaise connexion internent,
foyer surpeuplé, pas à l’aise avec internet]

politique concrète : gender mainstreaming (aproche genré dans *toutes* les décisions polituqe) et
gender budgeting (idem mais dans les budgets)

«  combatre toutes les formes de dominations » mais on parle (quasi) uniquement des femmes
(blanches ? Valides, …?) (moi : réalisé que d’autres oppressions ont plus d’impact que le
climat ou le sexisme pour les autres moins privilégiés, donc qu’il faut peut-être commencé
par là pour être toustes disponible à lutter contre le patriarcat?)

(moi : femme puis ‘équité sociale’. Donc la lutte contre le sexisme prend autant voire plus d’espace
de discussions ques toutes les autres luttes sociales? N’est-ce pas encore une mise en avant
très privilégie de mettre l’égalité des sexes en avant par rapport aux autres luttes )

théorie du donut, pas de model d’application

[chat utilisé uniquement pour appuyez la présentation jusqu’à présent]

[19:08 j’ai bientôt fini mais je termine ...]

Amsterdam s’inspire du donut

termine en parlant de convergence des luttes : patriarcat et capitalisme. Parle de travail non
rémunéré. Parle des aidants proche (mais pas des handicapés) (moi donc paroles jugée
‘oppresive’ car s’exprime sur la souffrances des oppresseurs?) → exemple d’handiphobie

v.ucl : baille bouche ouverte

fin 19u12
question 1 (yolande) : a un accent, pas de vidéo : mise en pratique au quotidien de la « renaissance
de la force nos valeurs (des valeurs de femmes) »

v.ucl se porte volontaire pour répondre (personne reconnu comme avec le + d’autorité?)

( moi exploitation gros, putes et handies ‘émotionnelle’ car permette aux autres de se sentir mieux,
donc si pas économique, n’est-ce pas là notre prochain problème, spirituel / identitaire, et
doit on vraiment attendre la fin du capitalisme pour s’en soucier)
Covid : femmes font tout : couture, enfant, foyer,…
repolitiser le care (pas sur reponsabilisation individuel) : militance du care (personnes et nature)
on parle de nouveau de soin de la personne malade (mais pas du fait que les personnes malades
n’ont pas assez de soin ×)

réponse fin vers 19h18 (donc parle pendant 10min). Yolande répond.

v.ucl : ton condescendant, en appuis sur sa main, négliger (la questoin ne mérite pas toute son
énergie?)

florence (vierendeel) : solution par la sensibilisation (et plein plien de choses), éducation relative
affective sex, congé parentale, place en acceuile petite enfance.

(moi : exploitation économique des femmes et néocoloniale (mais on ne parle *pas* des pauvres =
classe = job sous payé pourtant essentiels) ni d’autres formes d’exploitation : spirutel /
identitaire / … des gros, handi, putes, … qui sous exclus du système et du capitalisme et
donc de la ssécu sociale (retraite, soin, ….) donc subissent pourtant le capitalisme par
exclusion même de ce système, comme prévoir le monde de demain en pensant démenteler
cela, en créant un système qui les inclus si on en discute pas et ne prennons pas notes des
exclusions du systèmes déjà en place ? On va-t-on, dans la politique du moins pire,
construire une autre forme de domination

Par ex : on a parlé du car et d’aidant proche mais on ne parle pas du manque de moyen alouer aux
personnes handi pour pouvoir mener une vie normale et avoir accès aux droits dans le
système capitaliste (boulot, revenu, santé, ...))

question par joelle : étudiante (?) différence genré dans les participations aux conférences
économique ou écoféministe. Y a til des figures masculines qui se revendiquent écofem ?
Quelle place pour les hommes ?

Naturellement, v.ucl prend la parole. Dit qu’elle est directrice pour l’institut de l’égalite des femmes
et des hommes. Elle a impliqué des les hommes. Point de vu universaliste (moi . . .
facepalm). Se dit laïque, ne veut pas être associé à la religion (= bigote).
Parle longtemps, parle d’elle, est posé (témoigne d’une habitutde d’être écouté sans être
questionné). Florence répond ensuite : mixité pronné également. (les deux ne favorisent
donc pas la paroles aux concernés).

Coline : critique du groupe mixte (hégémonie masculine et accaparation de l’espace de parole) :

souligne l’intérêt de la non mixité. Vécu par des femmes, discuté par des hommes ?

Aissatou (personne noire) : question lié à ma question : intègre-t-on l’intersesctionnalité dans l’éco
fémnisme ?

v.ucl : réponse, : postulat (streser) luttes identitaires fragmente et devient illisble plutot que la lutte
des classes. «  moi j’ai essayé de vous faire un résumé » moi, je

Pas besoin d’intersectionnalité. Répète simplement ce qu’elle a dit. Souligne : pas de lecture
marxiste dans ce courant (donc pas de classe. Répond donc à la question d’éxploitaiton
économique des pauvre).

Florence : lutte des classes pas la priorité de l’écoféminisme. Justifie leur (dé)intérert pour
l’intersectionalité, mais de réfléchissent pas à comment aller au-delà pour détruire le
capitalisme.

Se contente donc de répéter / (clarifier?) leurs propos, plutôt que discuter à proprement parler.
(Témoigne d’une certaines frontalité. Pas d’intéraction entre participant.Es, sauf un peu dans
le chat. S’est mis en place des tours de roles dans les réponses

concept : fonction (sociologie structurelle. Comment les conférences / les intéractions en ligne nous
prive des intéractions sociales informelles / non structurés)
concept 2 : reproduction des dynamique de pouvoirs dans le féminisme (notons que pourtant les
hommes n’ont pas parlé:o:o )
concept 2 : fragmentation des luttes par identitarisme plutôt qu’universalisme (?)

Margaux ‘au delas des courant, originalité (moi : lolilol, invisibiliser les gens ça aide quoi?)

Didier : 2 questions
1) clarification : quel différence en productivisme et capitalisme
note : impressionant d’être en difficulté pour un homme de poser une question devant des femmes
(vieux, blanc, riche,…)
2) stratégique sur l’écoféminisme, les hommes sont-ils exclus, (moi : pauvre petits, ouin, ouin).
Sororité invisibilise.
On aura donc plus parler d’invisibilisation des hommes dans la lutte féministe (running gag) que
d’invisibilisation de toutes les autres luttes qui « fragmentent »

v.ucl : non on exclu pas les hommes parce que y a féministe dans eco-fem. Alors pourquoi les autres
valeurs identitaires excluraient ou fragementeraient ?

Florence : égalité indispensable pour les femmes et les hommes, il faut nous y sensibiliser

coline : on met tjs les hommes en avant, merde, on peut bien mettre les femmes en avant. Ce n’est
pas excluant.

v.ucl : ‘non non non non attendez’, de nouveau condescendant. Soupir, enjeux ‘fondamentaux

Intérompues, à 2 reprise, élévation de la voix, critique de « féminisme désincarné, pas de terrain »,

les gros ne sont pas exploités, abolutioniste, les putes sont exploitées par le patriarcat. Ce n’est pas
un féministe privilégiée (car travail invisible). Douleur / colère visible sur son visage.
(moi :L’égo des homme et des femmes blanche jpp)es

écoféminisme pas une théorie : terrain. Ne peut pas être théorisée.

Mais le féminisme convergent peut être ‘terranisé’, + en lutte.

Avant d’être ‘retiré’ de laréunion, Didier me dit qu’il partage mon interrogation, en privée, et n’ose
pas le faire en publique sans porte un ‘discrédit masculain’.

Je n’aurais pas le temps de d’expliquer mon point de vu d’une réunion très white fem.