Article Review on Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Re-

Placing Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism

Carl O. Cabasag

I. About the Author

Greta Gaard currently serves on the Executive Council of the Association for the Study of

Literature and the Environment. Her research and activism address the local and global

intersections of gender, race, sexuality, species, and ecology. Her essays have appeared in

Alternatives, The Ecologist, Women & Environments, ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in

Literature and the Environment, Hypatia, Ethics & the Environment, Environmental Ethics,

Signs, and other journals, bringing a feminist perspective to explore intersections of social,

species, and environmental justice. Her book publications include Ecofeminism: Women,

Animals, Nature (Temple University Press, 1993); Ecofeminist Literary Criticism (University of

Illinois Press, 1998); Ecological Politics: Ecofeminists and the Greens (Temple University Press,

1998); and a book of creative nonfiction, The Nature of Home (University of Arizona Press,

2007).

II. Summary

Ecofeminism have been a long existing theory since 1980s. However, due to some

charges like that of gender essentialism and backlashing by antifeminist, the theory lost earlier

feminist and ecofeminist bodies of knowledge. The article goes down to recuperating the

jettisoned bodies of knowledge of which are essential for todays scholars and eco-activists.

Ecofeminism has proliferation of terms due to fear of contamination. There are two kinds of

critiques of ecofeminism: external and internal critiques.

 Ecofeminism emerged from the intersections of feminist research and the various

movements for social justice and environmental health, explorations that uncovered the linked

oppressions of gender, ecology, race, species and nation. A notable work, Woman and Nature by

Susan Griffin, predates studies in exploration of the ways that the feminized status of women,

animals, nature, and feminized others have been conceived of as separate and inferior in order to

legitimate their subordination under an elite and often violent and militarized male-dominant

social order.

Carolyn Merchant bridged social feminis and ecology in her work The Death of Nature of

which provided historical documentation for the claim that the domination of women and of

nature have shared roots in the logic of science and capitalism, an intertwining of economics and

rationalism that dates back from 1484 tp 1716. Merchant voyage of discovery like that of with

burnings along with the women’s “animal familiars” and various gay men, along with animal

experimentation, the demise of midwifery and the rise of Western medical science indicates

illicit appropriations of superiority to men.

Feminist activism in 1980s suggested ecological and feminist perspective that linked

militarism, corporatism, and unsustainable energy production by enjoining antinuclear protests

and the peace movement. Women before also made a stand to cease the operation and testing of

nuclear cruise missiles for the fear for the future generations and especially the world which is

the basis of all life.

On the other side of Atlantic in United states (East Coast), the Women’s Pentagon

Actions of 1980 and 1981 was a parallel movement to the abovementioned. Important figures of

this movement were Ynestra King, Grace Paley, and Chaia Heller. They created social

ecofeminism articulating a materially based analysis of alienation, hierarchy, and domination of

mutually reinforcing structures of economic, political, social, and gender hierarchies. They

highlight primacy to economic and political analysis and envisions solutions that relied on

municipalism, small-scale communities, and direct, participatory democracy. Later in 1980s, this

movement was articulated on the West Coast too. They articulated ecofeminism’s utility in

advancing intersectional analyses of gender, class, indigeneity, and ecology. Works like

Reweaving the World articulated ecofeminism by addressing intersections of race and toxic

waste, childbirth, midwifery, colonialism, the colonial and patriarchal development of non-

Western countries, the role of religion in shaping human relationships with nature, and critiques

of feminist theory’s anthropocentrism.

Within and alongside with the many anthologies, Marjorie Spiegel’s The Dreaded

Comparison drew clear parallels between the enslavement of nonhuman animals and African

Amreican in the United States, while the Rape of the Wild by Andree Colard and Joyce

Contrucci explored the masculinized violence directed at women, people of color, animals, and

the natural world through structures of domesticity, enslavement, hunting, militarism, science

and technology – all legitimated and normalized through religion, culture, and language.

The drawing back of the history of feminism, ecofeminism would serve as the third wave

of feminism that would transform the anthropocentric critiques of first and second wave

feminism with an ecological perspective. However, something different happened. Ecofeminism

was portrayed as an exclusively essentialist equation of women with nature, discrediting

ecofeminism’s diversity of arguments and standpoints to the point it was nearly impossible to

find a single essay devoted to issues of feminism and ecology, species, or nature.

Poststructuralist feminists lost sight of the structuralist insight of ecofeminism view on

environmental degradation with women’s oppression.

 Gaard contends that it is anthropocentric feminism that has come to dominate feminist

thinking today, marginalizing feminism’s relevance. Global crises of climate justice, food

security, energy justice, vanishing wildlife, maldevelopment, habitat loss, industrial animal food

production, and more have simultaneously social and ecological dimensions that require both

ecological and feminist analyses. Now, with the many critics ecofeminists are listening to, the

critics also should listen to ecofeminism standpoints.

Gaard makes some referential points on the many critics that have been made during

1990s. Some even ask what does concern with ecology have to do with concern with sexism,

racism and classism. Paul DiPerna, a reviewer of Women’s Review of Books, does not believe

that meat-eating to be an environmental threat on par with ozone depletion. Moreover, Bina

Agarwal made clear that feminist environmentalism is opposed to ecofeminism. Ecofeminism

believes that women and nature share a strong bond because of their shared history of patriarchal

oppression; while feminist environmentalism focuses on gender in the political economy. Yet,

the approach of Agarwal – feminist environmentalism – has been adopted by committed

ecofeminists, treating “ecofeminism” and “feminist environmentalism” to be like a intra-

disciplinary distinctions rather than different approaches. This internal arguments within

feminism resulted from Agarwal’s claims.

Ecofeminism has been long charged with being essentialist. Then work on centralizing

species at the center of ecofeminism – Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature – had critiques

and became the leading edge of the anti-ecofeminism backlash. Generally speaking, criticisms of

ecofeminism come from mainstream feminism and formerly ecofeminist philosophers.

Mainstream feminists are also anti-essentialist, though not all. Many of them insisted that
consideration of nonhuman animals within feminism was essentialist and ethnocentric.

Ecofeminists’ arguments are also said to fall into straw-woman (straw-man) fallacy.

In addition to the many proliferations of ecofeminism, there are vegan ecofeminists. They

assert that moral vegetarianism is completely compelling as an expression of an ecological ethic

of care… for economically well-off persons in technologically advanced countries. Some

ecofeminist and feminist environmentalists soon became vegetarians.

Along with the charge of being essentialist were the charges of essentialist spirituality

that both gendered the earth as female and led to elite, apolitical retreat and individual salvation

rather than inspiring engaged struggles for local, community-wide, and global eco-justice.

However, ecofeminist theory, practice, and spirituality have been consistently been rooted in

activism that challenges any notions of essentialism. Yet, the feminist critique of ecofeminism as

inseparable from an essentialist spirituality rested on shaky evidence. Other than feminism itself,

Deep ecologists, social ecologists, Greens, animal liberationists, and other environmentalists also

responded to ecofeminism with skepticism. Ecofeminists responded and argued against their

debate with deep ecologists’ term of the cause of Western culture destruction of the natural

world termed as anthropocentrism should be properly termed as “androcentrism” since most of

women and people of color were only marginally included in the elite, white male domination of

nature. Furthermore, ecofeminists rejected the “deep ecological self” because it articulates

oneness with nature but fundamentally narcissistic, androcentric, and colonizing.

Feminist graduate students were being advised against undertaking ecofeminist

approaches in their dissertations, and scholars were advised against publishing works with the

word “ecofeminism” in their title or keywords. Ecofeminism has greatly been discredited even

though it made its forefront of brining animal, feminist, and environmental perspectives to
feminist theory, environmental studies and ecocriticism. Yet, in the best of their abilities,

ecofeminists try to find the language that will communicate the focus and implications of their

work.

III. Article Review

This article of Greta Gaard is a mixture of anthology and historical review of

ecofeminism. Ecofeminism is in a way lost for the reason of it being rejected or discredited

despite the many knowledge or ideas it has contributed to the field of environment and activism.

The author carefully predates todays ecofeminism even way back to the European witch-burning

and spirituality goddess up to antagonizing thoughts of skeptics of ecofeminism. Ecofeminism

has its long history.

Ecofeminism does is clearly not the mainstream feminism as clearly pointed out by Greta

Gaard. Rather ecofeminism, is also an activism to which emphasis of thought is given to the

bond of nature and women have since they share patriarchal history of oppression. Nonetheless,

with their environmental ethics, some ecofeminists use the Mother Earth analogy. The earth has

this maternal nature as the provider or basis of all life. This basis of all life deserves ecological

justice.

One good thing about the article of Gaad is that she attempts to organize by chronicling

also their history (ecofeminist history) the broken pieces of ecofeminism brought about its

contamination linked with feminism. Its broken pieces were also caused by its internal and

external battles. There was a need to recuperate such bodies of knowledge jettisoned for quiet

some time for it is beneficial for current activism and scholarly works, especially on

environmental justice. This recuperation is made important since ecofeminism have a widespread
influence on humanities and social sciences. Surely enough, this article serves as a form of

dialogue between ecofeminists and feminists, and ecofeminists and other skeptics who have not

been listening or trying to understand their unique standpoints.

Ecofeminism as a social movement primarily aims to understand the degradation of

nature caused by man together with how they (women) are treated. It seems to them that

androcentrism – patriarchy – is the cause of the degradation of the environment. Ecofeminism is

said to be essentialist and ethnocentric. Essentialism is a very important philosophical concept to

which up until now is being debated. It also plays an important role in understanding race,

gender, and sexuality. Ethnocentrism is the ethical view of judging something from the point of

ones culture. However, Gaad denies that ecofeminism is an essentialist.

It should also be mentioned that ecofeminism’s proponents are mainly, but not limited to,

women that are oppressed and people of all colors. With their response to deep ecologists’

argument regarding the destruction of the West’s environment is due to androcentrism, they

should also consider that oppression to women and ultimately to nature is not by far done by men

alone. Oppression could also come from women and people of all colors. Intersectionality is also

highlighted as to consider the unique experiences of discrimination or oppression.

Abovementioned statement is true but it simply cannot be dismissed that societies even

long before are patriarchal in nature. Ecofeminist does not prioritize to be in equal footing with

men – the contamination linked with feminism – bur rather, their priority is to restore the health

of this planet. Ecofeminists are greatly concerned of the future generations or their “children”

and this world that is the basis of all life.

 More so, the ecofeminists movement seems to address the problem of degradation of

nature through their ecofeminist theories since they are the ones oppressed; and to recall both

women and nature share the same struggle of oppression from men. They advocate in

overhauling the domination of patriarchal nature and replace it with an ethic of care, grounded on

feminist characteristics of care and nurturing. Such attributes are said to be maternal in nature.

However, one week point of ecofeminism is the laborious way of inclusion of almost

everything in their intellectual and practical endeavor. It is understandable that maternal

characteristic is a good proposal for ethic of care but having almost everything to be discussed by

their ideology or movement is arguably laborious and intellectually tiring – hence, the alleged

accusation of straw-woman fallacy. Nevertheless, it is still considerable since ecofeminism is in

the process of recuperation from lost body of knowledge and from external and internal battles.

IV. Conclusion

Ecofeminism cannot be done without its involvement in activism, since it is deeply a

social movement. However, in terms of intellectual undertaking, especially for environmental

ethics. Ethics of care for the nature should reflect the maternal characteristics or value of caring

and nurturing. This article serves as a form of dialogue and a restart for the third wave of

feminism in aiming to produce practical solutions for the degradation of the environment.

Ecofeminism should be distinguished from mainstream feminism. Ecofeminism simply is a

social movement in search for practical answers and actions for the caring and nurturing of the

world. Oppression of the world today is very prevalent like the oppression to women in the past

and now. Ecofeminism is one of the proposals in the intellectual field and practical action that

aims to support not the abuse of nature but the proper care and nurturing of it.