Skip to main content

Women and Nature Revisited: Ecofeminist Reconfigurations of an Old Association

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Feminist Ecologies

Abstract

The term écofeminisme is said to have been first coined in 1974 by radical French feminist Françoise d’Eaubonne. Identifying the underlying cause for the twin crises of overpopulation and overproduction—somewhat reductively—in the age-old patriarchal domination of women, d’Eaubonne called upon feminists to wed their cause to that of the environment and lead the way into a postpatriarchal, genuinely ‘humanist’, and ecologically sustainable future (d’Eaubonne, Le Féminisme ou la mort, Pierre Horay, 1974: 213–252). Since the publication of Le Feminisme ou Le Mort the connections between the position of women and the fate of the earth have been explored in a number of theoretical directions and arenas of action. As the three books under discussion here amply demonstrate (Merchant, Earthcare: Women and the Environment, Routledge, 1996; Mellor, Feminism and Ecology, Polity Press, 1997; Salleh, Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx and the Postmodern, Zed Books, 1997), by the mid-1990s, ecofeminism had truly come of age, both as a theoretically sophisticated form of critique and as a global movement of resistance and renovation, linking struggles against environmental degradation with the endeavour to overcome social domination, above all on the basis of sex/gender, but also increasingly in terms of ‘race’ and class.

Originally published as: Rigby, Kate. 1998. Women and Nature Revisited: Ecofeminist Reconfigurations of an Old Association, Arena Journal 12: 143–169.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For a translation, see d’Eaubonne 1994.

  2. 2.

    Salleh, for example, refers to three specifically lesbian-identified anti-nuclear groups: Lesbians United in Non-Nuclear Action (against the Seabrook reactor), Dykes Opposed to Nuclear Energy, who ‘organized a New York conference on the energy crisis as a malegenerated pseudo-problem’, and Dykes Against Nukes Concerned with Energy (against the United Energy) (Salleh 1997: 19–20).

  3. 3.

    Salleh herself has been an energetic activist on a number of fronts: in the Movement Against Uranium Mining, the Franklin Dam Blockade, the Australian Greens, the Society for Social Responsibility in Engineering, the Women in Science Enquiry Network, and the Women’s Environmental Education Centre in Sydney, as well as in some other more localized campaigns.

  4. 4.

    For example, outside the Smithfield air force base in South Australia, the Lucas Heights Atomic Energy Establishment in NSW, and, together with Aboriginal men and women and other peace activists, at the US reconnaissance station at Pine Gap (Salleh 1997: 18–22).

  5. 5.

    In 1978, alarmed by the high incidence of miscarriage, birth defects, and unusual and potentially life-threatening health problems affecting women and children in their neighbourhood, the women of Love Canal, led by Lois Gibbs, initiated investigations which revealed that the State of New York had given approval for the development of their residential area near a site that the Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Association had used as a toxic waste dump between 1942 and 1953. Tragically, the elementary school had been built right over the dump itself (See Merchant 1996: 11–12, 155–157; Mellor 1997: 20–22).

  6. 6.

    WARN was founded in South Dakota in 1977 to protest against involuntary sterilization, the erosion of the family on reservation lands, and the shrinkage of reservation lands (see Merchant 1996: 155).

  7. 7.

    For example, Sen and Grown 1987. This is the report presented to the 1985 UN Decade for Women meeting in Nairobi by Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), a group of 22 activists, researchers, and policy makers from Africa, Asia, and Latin America (see also Mellor 1997: 30–33).

  8. 8.

    For example, in Agarwal 1992; Braidotti 1994; Mellor 1997: 35.

  9. 9.

    Merchant’s concluding chapter is in fact a revised version of the address she gave to the Planeta Femea conference (Merchant 1996: 209–224). See also Mellor 1997: 35–37 and Salleh 1997: 26–27, 136.

  10. 10.

    Salleh is even more damning of the final document, commenting that ‘the Rio meeting provided a template for the neo-feudal order and its key stratifications’ (1997: 135).

  11. 11.

    There is a discrepancy between Merchant’s Table 2 on p. 6, which distinguishes Marxist and socialist ecofeminism , and her subsequent discussion, in which Marxist ecofeminism is apparently subsumed by socialist ecofeminism, which is now distinguished from social ecofeminism .

  12. 12.

    See also Green 1995.

  13. 13.

    With reference to Collard 1988. See also Daly 1978.

  14. 14.

    With reference to Irigaray 1985. Cixous is not included in Mellor’s bibliography, but she is probably referring to her influential essay ‘The Laugh of the Medusa’ (1976). It should be pointed out that Irigaray has become more explicitly ecofeminist in her more recent work, and is apparently an active environmentalist. See Irigaray 1993.

  15. 15.

    See also Starhawk 1990. and Spretnak 1990.

  16. 16.

    See, for example, Gimbutas 1982.

  17. 17.

    Bookchin has developed his theory of social ecology through a number or publications from Toward an Ecological Society (1980) to Re-Enchanting Humanity (1995). Janet Biehl broke with ecofeminism in her book Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ecofeminist (1991). Ynestra King began in the social ecology movement, giving lectures at the Institute of Social Ecology in Vermont, founded by Murray Bookchin, but has since distanced herself from his approach. As well as being a prominent activist, she has published a number of highly significant articles since the early 1980s. See, for example King 1989 and 1990.

  18. 18.

    For her excellent discussion of social ecology and ecofeminism, see pp. 150–161.

  19. 19.

    See Merchant 1995.

  20. 20.

    Having realized that the acronym of her key terms—Holism, Uncertainty, Responsibility, Reciprocity, Awareness, and Humility—spelt HURRAH!

  21. 21.

    Merchant is less explicit about this, but agrees that practices orientated towards facilitating change at the level of consciousness are no less important than those of a more conventional political nature.

Bibliography

  • Agarwal, Bina. 1992. The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18 (1): 119–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Beauvoir, Simone. 1968. The Second Sex. London: Jonathan Cape.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beinssen-Hesse, Silke, and Kate Rigby. 1996. Out of the Shadows: Contemporary German Feminism. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biehl, Janet. 1991. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bookchin, Murray. 1980. Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. Re-Enchanting Humanity. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braidotti, Rosi, et al., eds. 1994. Women, the Environment and Sustainable Development. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, Rachel. 1965. Silent Spring. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christ, Carol P. 1990. Rethinking Theology and Nature. In Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, ed. I. Diamond and G.F. Orenstein. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cixous, Hélène. 1976. The Laugh of the Medusa. Signs 1: 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collard, Andree (with Joyce Contrucci). 1988. Rape of the Wild. London: The Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, Deane. 1991. Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care. Hypatia: Special Issue on Ecological Feminism 6 (1, Spring): 60–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, Mary. 1978. Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism. London: The Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Eaubonne, Françoise. 1974. Le Féminisme ou la mort. Paris: Pierre Horay.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994. The Time for Ecofeminism. In Ecology, ed. C. Merchant and Trans. R. Hottell, 174–197. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. The Dialectic of Sex. London: The Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimbutas, Marija. 1982. The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottleib, Roger S. 1996. Spiritual Deep Ecology and the Left: An Attempt at Reconciliation. In The Sacred Earth, Religion, Nature and Environment, ed. R.S. Gottlieb, 516–531. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Karen. 1994. Freud, Wollstonecraft, and Ecofeminism: A Defence of Liberal Feminism. Environmental Ethics 16 (Summer): 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. The Woman of Reason: Feminism, Humanism and Political Thought. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Susan. 1978. Women and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, Donna. 1988. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irigaray, Luce. 1985. Speculum of the Other Woman. Trans. G.C. Gill. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Je, te, nous. Toward a Culture of Difference. Trans. A. Martin. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, Ynestra. 1989. Toward an Ecological Feminism and a Feminist Ecology. In Healing the Wounds: Promise of Ecofeminism, ed. J. Plant, 18–28. Santa Cruz: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Healing the Wounds: Feminism, Ecology, and the Nature/Culture Dualism. In Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, ed. I. Diamond and G.F. Orenstein. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, Freya. 1994. Relating to Nature: Deep Ecology or Ecofeminism? Trumpeter 11 (4): 159–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, Mary. 1997. Feminism and Ecology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, Carolyn. 1985. Preserving the Earth. Women and the Progressive Conservation Crusade. Environmental Review 8 (I): 57–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. Reinventing Eden: Western Culture as Recovery Narrative. In Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature, ed. W. Cronon. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. Earthcare: Women and the Environment. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mies, Maria. 1986. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orenstein, Gloria Feman. 1990. The Greening of Gaia: Ecofeminist Artists Revisit the Garden. In Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, ed. I. Diamond and G.F. Orenstein. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortner, Sherry B. 1974. Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture? In Woman, Culture, Society, ed. M.Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere, 67–87. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking. London: The Women’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1992. Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing. San Francisco: Harper & Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salleh, Ariel. 1997. Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx and the Postmodern. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, Gita, and Caren Grown. 1987. Development, Crises and Alternative Visions. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, Vandana. 1989. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spretnak, Charlene. 1990. Ecofeminism: Our Roots and Flowering. In Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, ed. I. Diamond and G.F. Orenstein. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starhawk. 1990. Power, Authority and Mystery: Ecofeminism and Earth-Based Spirituality. In Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, ed. I. Diamond and G.F. Orenstein. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rigby, K. (2018). Women and Nature Revisited: Ecofeminist Reconfigurations of an Old Association. In: Stevens, L., Tait, P., Varney, D. (eds) Feminist Ecologies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64385-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64385-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-64384-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-64385-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics