Advertisement

Ecofeminist Dualisms

  • Neil H. Kessler
Chapter
Part of the AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series book series (AESS)

Abstract

Ecofeminists have identified human/nature dualisms that work to reduce more-than-human beings to passive, material, objects. Theories constructed using these dualisms introduce a tension between modern human closeness experiences and explanatory theories where true reciprocal closeness is defined as improbable. Human/nature dualisms such as instrumentalism, individualism, materialism, and passive objectification all operate to reinforce this tension, with anthropocentrism as both human/nature dualism and by-product of the others. Monist materialism is also dualist in this sense because, no matter how broadly one construes it (even the new materialism of posthumanism) it relies wholly for its position on the negation of more-than-material possibilities such as spiritual experience. More-than-material ontological elements are initially designated as those that don’t comport easily and obviously with material explanations, and include things like feelings, consciousness, agency, love, telos, the spiritual and many others.

Keywords

Ecofeminism American pragmatism Primary experience Human/nature dualisms Materialism Instrumentalism Anthropocentrism More-than-material ontology 

References

  1. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batisse, M. (1982). The biosphere reserve: A tool for environmental conservation and management. Environmental Conservation, 9(2), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bekoff, M. (2000). Animal emotions: Exploring passionate natures. Bioscience, 50(10), 861–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett, J. (2010). A vitalist stopover on the way to a new materialism. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp. 47–69). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandler, D. (2013). The world of attachment? The post-humanist challenge to freedom and necessity. Millennium, 41(3), 516–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the new materialisms. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp. 1–43). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1929). Experience and nature. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evernden, L. L. N. (1992). The social creation of nature. Baltimore: JHU Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism, and new materialisms. Existenz, 8(2), 26–32.Google Scholar
  10. Foster, J. B. (2000). Marx’s ecology: Materialism and nature. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gaard, G. (2010). Ecofeminism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kaptchuk, T. J. (2002). Acupuncture: Theory, efficacy, and practice. Annals of Internal Medicine, 136(5), 374–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kessler, N. (2012). Chaos or relationalism? A pragmatist metaphysical foundation for human-nature relationships. The Trumpeter, 28(1), 43–75.Google Scholar
  14. King, R. J. H. (1991). Caring about nature: Feminist ethics and the environment. Hypatia, 6(1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. LeDoux, J. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  17. Milton, K. (2002). Loving nature: Towards an ecology of emotion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Warren, K. J. (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Warren, K. J. (2000). Ecofeminist philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830–840.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil H. Kessler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and the EnvironmentUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations