Woman-Nature Connections

One of the important ecofeminists (mostly cultural/essentialist) assertion is: the Women have a greater connection to the nature. Karen Warren has outlined eight different sorts of connections which ecofeminists have identified between women and nature. These are (1) Historical connections (such as those identified by Carolyn Merchant regarding Baconian scientific thought and Enlightenment views)¹, (2)Conceptual connections(Value dualism and hierarchies, patriarchal world views, and conceptual sex-gender differences), (3)Empirical and experimental connections (such as disproportionate environmental burdens borne by women, or alternatively cultural and spiritual ties to the earth which are celebrated by women), (4) Symbolic connections (either those offering alternative spiritualities celebrating life-affirming traits of women and their relationship to the earth, or negative ones showing how the association of nature with women has led to environmental degradation when and where male-female relations are poor), (5) Epistemological connections (critiques of dualistic epistemologies and Enlightenment rationalism),(6)Political/praxis connections (grassroots protests involving women in animal rights, environmental degradation, etc., campaigns). (7) Ethical connections (the development of either theories regarding humanity and non-human nature which are not male-based, such as care ethics, kinship ethics and animal rights positions) and finally (8) theoretical connections (involving raising connections between women and nature and existing theoretical frameworks).³

Keeping all the above arguments on woman-Nature connections on one side, the question remains to be answered that if ‘femininity' and 'masculinity are social constructions in what sense do feminine qualities belong to women?

Similarly, if nature' and 'culture' are social constructions in what sense are women closer to nature?

The non-essentialist features of ecofeminism would accept that women have both masculine and feminine traits, but patriarchy stimulates, their femininity and categories them inside an ideologically loaded system.

 Similarly, the natural world in itself, is neither masculine nor feminine, but both. Aspects of nature exhibit competitiveness, aggression and hierarchy, all 'masculine' qualities whereas the traits of spontaneity and sobriety coupled with natural beauty shows its ‘feminine’ character.

The most non-essentialist ecofeminism asserts that within patriarchal dualism;

(a) The theme 'nature' feminine' traits and women are classified together, while the concept ‘culture', 'masculine' traits and men are classified together;

 (b) Those qualities categorized with 'nature' are deemed as of less worth than those qualities categorized with 'culture'.

 The belief that ‘women are closer to nature' is valid only if we adopt the first principle of patriarchal dualism.

Patriarchy vis-a-vis Ecological degradation & Women's Oppression

Another ecofeminist assertion assumes that 'Patriarchal dualism is at the base of ecological degradation and women's oppression’. Nevertheless, what ecofeminists call 'patriarchal dualism' is indeed age old and very widespread. It is clearly not restricted to western civilizations which cause so much environmental degradation. Notably, most indigenous tribal societies many of whom are held to be exemplary in their ecological awareness, hold very similar notions about masculine and feminine.

 Anthropological research findings show that there is no relation between patriarchal dualism and the social status of women. David Henry Peter Maybury-Lewis writes: ".....a very sexist cosmology can flourish where sex roles are not hierarchical, but egalitarian and competitive."⁴ Thus it's arguable that some societies are ecological, Earth-honouring and don't oppress women, but do have sexist cosmologies similar to western patriarchal dualism.

 But it seems that dualism itself is not the problem. It is at the heart of Chinese Taoist philosophy which Peter Marshal claims as "the first and most impressive expression of libertarian ecology”⁵

The key may lie in the understanding that there are different ways of understanding that there are different ways of ordering 'masculine' and 'feminine dualities: The Bara people of Madagascar associate the male principle with enduring order, represented by the human skeleton, and the female principle with flesh which represents growth, vitality and change. “The male principle is associated, for a change with death and the female one with life”⁶

There are many Goddesses who possess ‘masculine’ qualities. A good example is Morrighan, the bloodthirsty and lustful Irish war Goddess. Goddesses Durga & Kali may be cited as Indian illustration.

Women's subjugation & Ecological imbalance: can they be conceptualized separately?

The third ecofeminist assertion is: Ecology and feminism must cooperate in order to achieve their goals, i.e., neither a movement to end the oppression of women nor one to end the abuse of nature can be complete or successful without taking the other into consideration. This assertion is simply false- it is entirely possible to imagine that the goals of ecology could be met while those of feminism are left unmet. It is perfectly conceivable that our society could come to the realization that, unless we improve on our treatment of the natural world we live in and with, we are condemning  ourselves to certain degradation. And it is possible that, as a result of this realization, we could transform our behaviors, changing  our daily practices that disturb the nature. For instance, we might cut down the use of electricity, stop the production of toxic chemicals in everyday products, and enforce  recycling programs on a larger scale. 

 Similarly, it is feasible to imagine that the objectives of feminism could be achieved  while those of ecology could be missed. It would be great service to society if we could break the restricted categories of gender and create a more productive and happy life by establishing an organic unity among people and ecology. Under this paradigm it would be possible to transform and modify the behavior of population to establish a healthy working relationship between feminism and masculinity.

It is true that, as a simple matter of fact, the happening of either an ecological or feminist revolution might very well have productive effects for the other movement. For example, the changes that would occur to make our society ecologically accountable might reorient daily life so that women were not overburdened with the duties traditionally associated with the feminine roles. However, this does not save feminism: this sort of relief from oppression would be nothing but a happy accident. However much of an enhancement this might be in the position of women's lives, it would not absolutely be a feminist revolution: it would be an accidental effect of a general societal trend, not the result of the change of attitude and belief that feminism requires.

It is also true that the occurrence of one revolution might make it easier for the other to happen. An ecofeminist might argue that this indicates that the two are related as ecofeminism claims. However, all this actually indicates is that the two forms of domination are related in the trivial way that all such forms are. All forms of domination are related in that they stem from an attitude of superiority. Either of these revolutions would be a major society-wide change, and it would teach us ways to accomplish other major society-wide changes. But ending the domination of nature and ending the domination of women are no more conceptually related than are ending the dominations of anything else.

It is undoubtedly desirable that both the domination of nature and the domination of women are ended. The fact that it would be good if both dominations were ended together makes it true that they must be ended together, but in a way it's the only argument left to theorists of ecofeminism.