Write a critical position paper on the topic 'Ecological Feminism'. 1.) Use Warren's article as your starting point then you will need to explain what she says, identify and discuss the arguments she
KARIN I. WARRII'{ The Power and the Promise of Ecologlcal Feminism Karat J . Warren is prdessor oJ philosoplry at Macalester College. (Source: From Karen J. Warren, 'The Power and the Promíse of Ecolog¡cal Feminism," Environmental Ethics 12 [1990]:125-144. Repnntedby permission oJ the author and the publísher.) . . . [E]cological feminism is the position that there are important connections-historical, experiential, s)'rnbolic, theoretical-between the domination of women and the domination of nature, an under- standing of which is crucial to both feminism and environmental ethics. I argue that the promise and power of ecological feminism is that it provides a dis- tinctit e Jr amew orh b oth f or pr econcav ing J eminism and for developing an ertvironmental ethic which tahes sen- ously connectíonsbetween the domination of women and the domination oJ nature. . . . Feminism, Ecological Feminism, and Conceptual Frameworks . . . For ecofeminism, that a logic of domination is explanatorily basic is important for at least three rea- sons. First, without a logic of domination, a descrip- tion of similarities and differences would be just that-a description of similarities and differences. Consider the claim, "Humans are different from plants and rocks in that humans can (and plants and rocks cannot) consciously and radically reshape the communities in which they live; humans are simi- lar to plants and rocks in that they are both mem- bers of an ecological community." Even if humans 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 nonhu- mans, or an argument for the domination of plants ,and rocks by humans. To get those conclusions one needs to add at least two powerful assumptions, viz., (A2) and (A4) in argument A below: (Al) 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 to whatever lacks this capacity. (A3) Thus, humans are morally superior to plants and rocks. (A4) For any X and Y, if X is morally superior to Y, then X is morally justified in subordinating Y. (A5) Thus, humans are morally justified in subordi- nating plants and rocks. Without the two assumptions tha| humans are morally supenor to (at least some) nonhumans, (A2), and that supenonty justifies subordination. (A4), all one has is some difference between humans and some nonhumans. This is Írue even f that difference is given in terms of superiority. Thus, it is the logic t23 124 FirstPrinctples' TheEnvironment of domination, (44), which is the bottom line in eco- leminist discussions of oppression. Second, ecofeminists . . . claim that, historically, within at least the dominant Westem culture, a patri- archal conceptual framework has sanctioned the fol- lowing argument B: (Bl) Women are identified with nature and the realm of the physical; men are identified with the "human" and the realm of the mental. (B2) Whatever is identified with nature and the realm of t[e physical is inferior to ("below") whatever is identified with the "human" and the realm of the mental, or, conversely, the lat- ter is superior to ("above") the former. (B3) Thus, women are inferior to ("below") men; or, conversely, men are superior to ("above") women. (84) For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, then X is justified in subordinating Y. (B5) Thus, men are justified in subordinating women. lf sound, argument B establishes patnarchy, í'e., the conclusion give4 at (B5) that the systematic dom- ination of women by men is justified. But according to ecofeminists, (B5) is justified by just those three features of an oppressive conceptual framework identified earlier: value-hierarchical thinking, the assumption at (B2); value dualisms, the assumed dualism of the mental and the physical at (BI) and the assumed inferiority of the physical vis-á-vis the mental at (B2); and a logic of domination, the assumption at (B4), the same as the preüous prem- ise (A4). Hence, according to ecofeminists, insofar as an oppressive patriarchal conceptual framework has functioned historically (within at least dominant Westem culture) to sanction the twip dominations of women and nature (argument B), both argument B and the patriarchal conceptual framework, from whence it comes, ought to be rejected. Of course, the preceding does not identify which premises of B are false. What is the status of premises (Bl) and (B2)? Most, if not all, feminists claim that (Bl), and many ecofeminists claim that (B2), have been assumed or asserted within the dominant West- em philosophical and intellectual tradition. As such, these feminists assert, as a matter of historical fact, that the dominant Westem philosophical tradition has assumed the truth of (BI) and (B2). Ecofeminists, however, either deny (B2) or do not affirm (B2). Fur- thermore, because some ecofeminists are anxious to deny any ahistorical identification of women with nature, some ecofeminists deny (pI) when (Bl) is used to suppofi anyüing other than a strictly histori- cal claim about what has been asserted or assumed to be true within patriarchal culture-e.g', when (Bl) is used to assert that women properly are identified ' with the realm of nature and the physical. Thus' from an ecofeminist perspective, (Bl) and (B2) are properly üewed as problematic though historically sanctioned claims: they are problematic precisely because of the way they have functioned historically in a patriarchal conceptual framework and culture to sanction the dominations of women and nature. What all ecofeminists agree about, then, is the way in which th¿ logic oJ domination has functioned historically within patriarcfry to sustain and justify the twin dominations of women and nature. Since all feminists (and not just ecofeminists) oppose patri- archy, the conclusion given at (85), all feminists (including ecofeminists) must oppose at least the logic of domination, premise (B4), on which argu- ment B rests-whatever the truth-value status of (BI) and (B2) outside of a patriarchal context. That allfeminists must oppose the logic of domi- nation shows the breadth and depth of the ecofemi- nist critique of B: it is a critique not only of the three assumptions on which this argument for the domi nation of women and nature rests, ü2., the assump- tions at (BI), (82), and (84); it is also a critique of patriarchal conceptual frameworks generally, i.e., of those oppressive conceptual frameworks which put men "up" and women "down," allege some way in which women are morally inferior to men, and use ttiat alleged difference to justify the subordination of women by men. Therefore, ecofeminism is necessary to any feminist critique of patriarchy, and, hence, necessary to feminism. . . . Third, ecofeminism clarifies why the logic of dom- ination, and any conceptual framework which gives rise to it, must be abolished in order both to make possible a meaningful notion of difference which does not breed domination and to prevent feminism from becoming a "support" movement based primarily on shared experiences. ln contemporary society, there is no one "woman's voice," no wom6n (or human) simplicíter: every woman (or human) is a woman (or human) of some race, class, age, affectional orienta- tion, marital status, regional or national background, and so forth. Because there are no "monolithic expe- riences" that all women share, feminism must be a "solidarity movement" based on shared beliefs and interests rather than a "unity in sameness" movement based on shared experiences and shared üctimiza- tion. In the words of Maria Lugones, "Unity-not to be confused with solidarity-is understood as con- ceptually tied to domination." Ecofeminists insist that the sort of logic of domi- nation used to justify the domination of humans by gender, racial or ethnic, or class status is also used to justify the domination of nature. Because eliminating a logic of domination is part of a feminist critique- whether a critique of patriarchy, white supremacist culture, or imperiali5¡n-s6ofsrninists insist that natunsm is properly viewed as an integral part of any feminist solidarity movement to end sexist oppres- sion and the logic of domination which conceptually groundsit.... Ecofeminism as a Feminist and Environmental Ethic . . . [A]n ecofeminist ethic involves a reconception of what it means to be human, and in what human ethi- cal behavior consists. Ecofeminism denies abstract individualism. Humans are who we are in large part by virtue of the historical and social contexts and the relationships we are in, including our relationships Karen J. Warren . The Power and the Promise of Ecologícal Feminism 125 with nonhuman nature. Relationships are not some- thing extrinsic to who we are, not an "add on" feature of human nature; they play an essential role in shap- ing what it is to be human. Relationships of humans to the nonhuman environment are, in part, constitu- tive of what it is to be a human. By making visible the interconnections among the domi4ations of women and nature, ecofeminism shows that both are feminist issues and that explicit acknowledgement of both is vital to any responsible enüronmental ethic. Feminism must embrace ecolog- ical feminism if it is to end the domination of women because the domination of women is tied conceptu- a and historically to the domination of nature. A responsible environmental ethic also must embrace feminism. Otherwise, even the seemingly most revolutionary, liberational, and holistic ecologi- cal ethic will fail to take seriously the interconnected dominations of nature and women that are so much a part of the historical legacy and conceptual frame- work that sanctions the exploitation of nonhuman nature. Failure to make visible these interconnected, twin dominations results in an inaccurate account of how it is that nature has been and continues to be dominated and exploited and produces an envi- ronmental ethic that lacks the depth necessary to be truty ínclusive of the realities of persons who at least in dominant Western culture have been intimately tied with that exploitation, viz., women. Whatever else can be said in favor of such holistic ethics, a failure to make visible ecofeminist insights into the common denominators of the twin oppressions of women and nature is to perpetuate, rather than over- come, the source of that oppression. . . . QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION I 2 What is ecological feminism? What role does a logic of domination play in eco- feminism? What assumptions do those who draw moral distinctions between humans and nonhu- mans need to make? What connects the domination of nature to the domination of women? How does ecological feminism seek to overcome the domination of nature? Stroup, Baden, and Fractor and Warren disagree sharply about a number of issues. Which dis- agreements are fundamental? How might Stroup, Baden, and Fractor critique Warren's üew? Compare ecofeminism to deep ecology. How are they similar? Where do they diverge? 5.6. 3.
4.
