6 stly, theoretical. Karen J.
Warren
CHAPTER-1
A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF ECOFEMINISM
We begin this chapter with a brief discussion of
ecofeminism. We started with
an introduction of ecofeminism, then we have given
a brief account of the connection
between women and nature, followed by analysis of
t Greek philosophy, while some trace it during the si
he viewpoints offered by some
ecofeminists. These analyses reveal the cause
behin
d the domination of both women
and nature. We have also tried to show that
ecofemi
nism not only includes women’s
problem but also environmental problems as well.
In
1974, French feminist, Francoise
d’Eaubonne introduced the term ‘
ecoféminisme
’ (ecofeminism) in
Le Féminisme ou
la Mort
(Feminism or Death).
Ecofeminism recognizes that there is a connection
b ce. Karen J. Warren mentioned
etween the domination of
women and the destruction of nature. The goal of fe
minist movement is to bring an
end the domination of women. And the goal of
ecolog
ical movement is to end the
destruction and exploitation of nature. The converg
ence of feminist movement and
ecology movement resulted in the emergence of a
mov
ement called ecological
feminism or ecofeminism, the goal of which is
based
on the construction of a society
that does not promote the domination of women
and t
he destruction of nature.
Karen J. Warren (1993a) mentioned that there are
ei
ght kinds of connection
that exists between women and nature. Karen J.
Warr
en stated that these connections
provide an examination of the kinds of the dominati
on of both women and nature.
These connections between women and nature are
hist
orical, conceptual, empirical,
symbolical, etymological, political, ethical and la
7
maintains that in tracing the origin of the dominat
ion of both women and nature, some
ecofeminists focus on the historical connections wh
ich began with the Indo-European
invasion, according to some others, in the rational
ist tradition and in the classical
xteenth and seventeenth century
scientific revolution. Some ecofeminists claim that
the domination of both women and
nature is rooted in conceptual connections. In the
words of Karen J. Warren, “A
conceptual framework is a socially constructed set
of basic beliefs, values, attitudes
and assumptions that shape and reflect how one
view
s oneself and others.”
1
According to Karen J. Warren (1994), a ‘
conceptual framework
’ is ‘
oppressive
’ when
it maintains relations of subordination and dominan
that a ‘
patriarchal conceptual framework
’ is ‘
oppressive
’ when it maintains and
justifies male subordination of female.
Karen J. Warren (1994) stated that the five charact
eristics of an ‘
oppressive
’
and ‘
patriarchal conceptual framework
’ includes (i) ‘
value-hierarchical(“Up-
Down”) thinking
’ which places higher value to the ‘Up’ as for exam
ple, ‘men’ than to
the ‘Down’ as for example, ‘women’; (ii) ‘
value dualisms (“either-or” thinking)
’
consists of disjunctive pairs, which places higher
value on one member of the pair.
The examples of the ‘value-hierarchical thinking’ a
nd ‘value dualisms’ includes
reason/emotion, mind/body, man/woman etc. Here,
hig
her value is given to ‘reason’,
‘mind’, ‘man’, whereas ‘emotion’, ‘body’, ‘woman’ a
re treated as inferior. Other
characteristics include (iii) ‘
power-over conceptions of power
’ which maintains
relations of domination and control and (iv) ‘conce
ptions of
privilege
’ sts focus on political
which privilege
‘Ups’ or which is higher in ‘Up-Down’ relationships
, and the last characteristic is (v)
1 political concerns which includes the systems of do
Warren, Karen J. (1993a): Introduction, in Environ
mental Philosophy, From Animal Rights to
Radical Ecology, Michael E. Zimmerman et al.
(eds.)
, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, p. 257.
8 t are not male-biased for both
‘ humans and nature. According to Warren, some
a logic of domination
’ where the logical structure of argument justifies
the
relationships of domination based on the justificat
ion that the one who is superior
subordinates the other who is inferior. Karen J. Wa
rren (1993a) stated that this
‘oppressive conceptual framework’ not only
sanction
s the domination of both women
and nature but is also the cause of all ‘isms of do
mination’ that is, sexism, racism,
classism etc.
Karen J. Warren (1993a) asserts that some
ecofemini
sts emphasize on the
empirical connections between the domination of
wom
en and the destruction of
nature, whereas on the other hand, some
ecofeminist
s focus on the symbolic
connections between women and nature in religion,
a ts. The analyses of these
rt, literature and theology which
devalues both women and nature. According to
Karen
J. Warren, other ecofeminists
claim that the connection between women and
nature
is epistemological. The
mainstream views of reason, rationality, knowledge
and the nature of the knower were
challenged by the ecofeminists. Val Plumwood
(1993)
considers ecofeminist
epistemologies must critic rationalism in the Weste
rn philosophical tradition. There is
need to develop revised views of the ethical and kn
owing self which transcends value
dualism and hierarchies.
Karen J. Warren (1993a) stated that other
ecofemini
connections between women and nature by taking
into
account grassroots activity and
mination and subordination.
Warren said that some other ecofeminists
emphasize
on the ethical connections
between women and nature by developing theories
tha
ecofem
inists focus on the theoretical
connections between women and nature. On the
basis
of the above mentioned seven
9
connections a theoretical position in linking areas
of feminist and environmental
philosophy is emerging.
Thus, we find that these different types of connect
ions between women and
nature are important for ecofeminism because
these
connections not only reveal
women’s closeness to nature but also disclose the t
reatment of both women and nature
in society. Women and nature are related because
bo
th of them are mothers. Not only
in Western culture, but also in Indian culture natu
re is identified as female.
We are now going to discuss the views of
ecofeminis
views show us how both women and nature are
subjuga
ted and dominated by men.
Carolyn Merchant (1982) considers that the
emergenc
e of scientific revolution
during the sixteenth and seventeenth century sancti
oned the domination of both
women and nature. Carolyn Merchant stated that in
a
ncient time the nature that is, the
earth was viewed as a living being and was identifi
ed with a ‘nurturing mother’. In
this organic view, the image of the earth as a ‘nur
turing mother’ restricts the
destructive actions of human beings towards nature
and allows human beings to
respect earth. Another image of nature contrary to
the first image also existed. The
second image of nature as violent and disorderly
wa
s also identified with the female.
This image of nature as chaotic sanctioned the
powe
r and mastery over nature.
Merchant stated that after scientific revolution th
e nature was viewed as ‘inert’ and
dead. The rise and the development of mechanism
dur
ing the sixteenth and
seventeenth century gave men power to control
and d
ominate both women and nature.
In this mechanical view, the female image of nature
was viewed as a resource to be
subjugated and controlled. The rise and the
develop
ment of mechanism sanctioned the
exploitation of both women and nature. Thus, we
see
that according to Carolyn
10
Merchant, scientific revolution sanctioned the subo
rdination of women and the
exploitation of nature.
Vandana Shiva (1988) upholds that modern
science an
d development as
Western ‘patriarchal projects’ is responsible for t
he subjugation of women and the
destruction of nature. During the fifteenth and sev
enteenth centuries in Europe, the
scientific revolution and the industrial revolution
occurred. Shiva maintains that the
emergence of modern science, technology and
economi
c development rooted in
patriarchy converted nature from ‘
Prakriti
’, the ‘living force’ into a machine and as a
resource for economic exploitation which
sanctioned
the denigration of nature and are
responsible for current ecological crisis. Accordin
g to Shiva, ‘western patriarchy’ is
the source of the domination of both women and
natu
re. Women’s dependency on
nature for their livelihood linked them with nature
. So, the destruction of nature is a
threat to their survival. For this reason, women le
d ecological struggles not only to
protect nature from destruction but also to restore
nature. Shiva maintains that in
Indian cosmological view, nature that is, the ‘
Prakriti
’ is the feminine principle that
supports and sustains all life. In the words of Van
dana Shiva, “As an embodiment and
manifestation of the feminine principle it is chara
cterized by (a) creativity, activity,
productivity; (b) diversity in form and aspect; (c)
connectedness and inter-relationship
of all beings, including man; (d) continuity betwee
n the human and natural; and (e)
sanctity of life in nature.”
2
Vandana Shiva (1988) stated that there is an ‘inti
mate’
relationship between women and nature because
the w
ork of both is to sustain life.
With the rise of modern science rooted in patriarch
y viewed nature as “(a) inert and
passive; (b) uniform and mechanistic; (c) separable
and fragmented within itself; (d)
2
Shiva, Vandana (1988): Staying Alive, Women,
Ecolo
gy and Survival in India, Kali For Women,
New Delhi, Zed Books Ltd., London, p. 40.
11
separate from man; and (e) inferior, to be dominate
d and exploited by man.”
3
Shiva
(1988) mentioned that this transformation of nature
from living ‘
Prakriti
’ to a
resource resulted in the devaluation, subjugation a
nd domination of both women and
nature. Thus, we see that according to Vandana
Shiv
a, Western patriarchy is the cause
of the domination of both women and nature.
Val Plumwood (1993) maintains that the Western
‘rat
ionalist tradition’ is the
source of the domination of both women and
nature.
The Western ‘rationalism’
acknowledges the ‘dualisms’ which is the cause of t
he domination of both women and
nature. In the words of Val Plumwood, “A dualistica
lly construed dichotomy typically
polarizes difference and minimizes shared
character
istics, construes difference along
lines of superiority/ inferiority, and views the in
ferior side as a means to the higher
ends of the superior side (the instrumental thesis)
.”
4 the source of the domination of both women and
According to Plumwood (1993)
the examples of such dualisms include
human/nature,
reason/nature, mind/body,
reason/emotion, masculine/feminine etc. These
‘dual
isms’ consists of two terms
opposed to each other. The terms on the left are as
sociated with masculinity and the
terms on the right are associated with feminity. A
higher value or prestige is attributed
to the terms on the left. And as a result, the term
s on the left are superior and the
terms on the right are inferior. The inferior spher
e is a means to the ends of the
superior sphere. The human/nature dualism is
centra
l in the rationalist culture. As for
example, in reason/emotion dualism, masculinity is
identified with the sphere of
reason and feminity is identified with the sphere o
f emotion. The sphere of reason is
the superior sphere and the sphere of emotion is th
e inferior sphere. The superior
sphere is contrasted with the inferior sphere. The
inferior sphere is the excluded
3 (A3) Thus, humans are morally superior to plants
Ibid., pp. 40-41.
4 (A4) For any X and Y, if X is morally superior t
Plumwood, Val (1993): Nature, Self and Gender,
Fem
inism, Environmental Philosophy, and the
Critique of Rationalism, in Environmental Philosoph
y, From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology,
Michael E. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Prentice-Hall I
nc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 298.
12
sphere. The inferior sphere is a means to the ends
of the superior sphere. Thus, we see
that according to Val Plumwood, in the Western cult
ure the dualistic framework
sanctioned the domination of both women and
nature
and separates men from both
women and nature.
Karen J. Warren (1993b), on the other hand,
conside
rs that the oppressive
conceptual structure sanctioned the domination of b
oth women and nature. According
to Karen J. Warren, an ‘oppressive conceptual
frame
work’ consists of three important
features. Among them the most important feature is
the ‘logic of domination’ which is
natu
re. In the words of Karen J.
Warren, a ‘logic of domination’ “involves a substan
tive value system, since an ethical
premise is needed to permit or sanction the “just”
subordination of that which is
subordinate.”
5
According to Karen J. Warren, this subordination i
s on the ground that
the subordinate or the inferior group lacks some ch
aracteristics or qualities that the
dominant or the superior group have. An example
of
such an argument given by
Karen J. Warren is as follows,
“(A1) Humans do, and plants and rocks do not,
have
the capacity to consciously
and radically change the community in which they
live.
(A2) Whatever has the capacity to consciously and
radically change the
community in which it lives is morally superior t
o whatever lacks this
capacity.
and rocks.
o Y, then X is morally justified
in subordinating Y.
5
Warren, Karen. J. (1993b): The Power and the
Promi
se of Ecological Feminism, in Environmental
Philosophy, From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology,
Michael E. Zimmerman et al. (eds.), Prentice-
Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, p. 322.
13
(A5) Thus, humans are morally justified in subord
inating plants and rocks.”
6
According to Warren (1993b), the argument A1-A5
is
an example of an ‘oppressive
conceptual framework’. The premise (A4) which
signi
fies ‘a logic of domination’
together with the premise (A2) which signifies ‘val
ue-hierarchical thinking’ and the
premise (A1) which signifies ‘value dualisms’ justi
fies the subordination of nature by
humans. In the words of Karen J. Warren, “Even if
h
umans are “better” than plants
and rocks with respect to the conscious ability of
humans to radically transform
communities, one does not
thereby
get any
morally
relevant distinction between
humans and nonhumans, or an argument for the
domina
tion of plants and rocks by
humans.”
7
Karen J. Warren (1993b) maintains that to get this
‘
morally
’ relevant
difference between humans and nonhumans two
importa
nt premises that is, “
humans
are morally superior
to (atleast some) nonhumans, (A2), and that
superiority justifies
subordination
, (A4)”
8
are included in the argument A. According to Warre
n, this
‘oppressive conceptual framework’ is ‘patriarchal’
when it maintains and justifies the
domination of both women and nature. According to
K
aren J. Warren, an example of
such an argument is as follows,
“(B1) Women are identified with nature and the re
alm of the physical; men are
identified with the “human” and the realm of the
mental.
(B2) Whatever is identified with nature and the rea
lm of the physical is inferior
to (“below”) whatever is identified with the “hum
an” and the realm of the
mental; or, conversely, the latter is superior to
(“above”) the former.