Can a ‘Deep Ecologist’ also be an Ecofeminist?
Introduction
One way to measure the strength and relevance of feminist notion is the range to which philosophers from a bigger spectrum to radicals and historians see the issue of gender issues as a vital component of their discipline. The discussion about environmental movement has developed fast in rigidity and relevance: the extent of philosopher that focus on environmental matters is to some extent a bugger matter like on gender. Considering the fast and dramatic emergence of philosophical issues for environmental matters, we ought to expect and allow contrast on conceptual and historical reasons for human annihilation of nature and how to handle it. The debate regarding the ecology and ecofeminism has received great focus. The debate has acquired major relevance to people concerned with ecophilosophy and ecopolitics as it contrasts the philosophical and social aspects that have been advanced in regard to ecological issues (Benson, 2000). This paper looks to focus on if deep ecologist can be ecofeminist.
In the position of deep ecologists, the ecofeminist critique of deep ecology is of great focus for two main reasons. One of them is the direct challenge that it creates to deep ecological theorizing. Deep ecology is based on motivating an egalitarian attitude on people not just in regards to all members of the ecosphere but to all entities like rivers, land forms and living organisms. They consider these social system to be a broad sense of life as stated in “Let the river live!” It is basically of little impact to deep ecologists, though, whether one desires to see the kind of egalitarianism they advocate as one progresses to living bodies or towards living and nonliving organisms. From this, the form of egalitarian tendency they advocate for is just supposed to show a tendency that, in the frame of practical limits, allows all the bodies the autonomy to change in their own way. This way is unhindered by the varied forms of human dominance (Norris, 2012). There are, in real sense, a varied number of issues that arise in defining the way these practical limits ought to extent or where an entity ends and another one starts. Though, against this, it has to be known that deep ecologists do not aim to advocate for certain forms of guidelines for action; they look to advocate for a holistic orientation. Deep ecologists allows cultural diversity in regards to aspects relating to general orientation.
Arne Naess states that we draw the boundaries between what is justifiable and unjustifiable interference with regard to this holistic orientation. Which has to be related to local, regional and national aspects. Deep ecologists has overriding considerations that ought to be worked out in the frame of holistic orientation they support. Arne acquires the sense of this orientation while passing through to us a sense of cultural diversity it offers (Spash, 2009). The cultural aspect it provides varies from one being to another. Deep ecologists tend to refer to this general orientation as a ‘biospherical egalitarianism. Though, since ‘bio’ means etymologically to life, it has been believed that deep ecology’s issues are bound on entities that biologically living. The proponents of deep ecology are of the belief that the issues that they face subsume the issues faced by movements that hinder their focus to getting an egalitarian human society. From this, the rise of ecofeminism as at the top of their forms-attempts by feminists, among others to handle human-based of their perspectives. On the whole, deep ecologists acknowledge these advancements and they see ecofeminism, and green socialism to have their unique theoretical opinions and focus due to the varied histories that inform them.
Deep ecology and ecofeminism
The debate between deep ecology and ecofeminism has been there for a long period of time. An advantage is that most of the people in this debate state that they have assisted one another comprehend their views and for their opponents. Additionally, they have deepened an understanding of the extensive matters. On the other hand, the debate has had a negative side to it, the proponents to deep ecology have termed some ecofeminist of being shallow and naïve on matters environment. While some ecofeminists have termed the ecologists as being sexists, shallow and fascists.
Arne Naess, the originator of deep ecology, attributes deep ecology as being flourishing agent to human and its setting, offers wealth and diversity, believe that human have no right to limit the wealth and diversity but only to meet their needs and the flourishing of non-human life calls for a decline in human population (Benson, 2000). Warwick Fox adds that deep ecology aims to encourage egalitarian tendency that allows varied forms of human rule. This makes ecologists to oppose the notion that humans are in the middle of the moral setting. Deep ecologists are of the belief that flouring can take place without destruction of nonhuman elements. Generally, deep ecology is focused on anthropocentric domination of its setting.
Ecofeminism arises from general claims; vital connections between women and nature in terms of oppression, comprehension of the model of these connections is vital for one to get a better understanding of these oppression, the theory and practice has to have an ecological side and the solutions have to have a feminist point of view. In the current day and age, feminist has to be transformed to outdo the present debate and move to make ecofeminist core to the theory and practice. Ecofeminism comprises of criticism of patriarchal model and creates a feminist model that is based on ecological elements.
Warren states that notions and attributes related to male have been accorded prestige in relation to the female. This gives rise to the aspect of domination that propels inequality. He adds that ecofeminist critique is based on ecological aspects and should be changed otherwise the ecological movement will not succeed (Keller, 2010). He goes on to show how women can be substituted for plants and rocks and how women are related to nature while men are to mind. Feminism has to be ecological. King adds that ecofeminism is closely connected to peace movement and aims to end domination. Gender being a vital part of an individual’s identity, they are naturalized in a culture based against nature.
The main contrast is that while deep ecology is keen on exclusively human dominance of the environment, ecofeminism focusses on an analysis that regards intimate logic and historical connections as vital. Another contrast that arises between ecofeminism and deep ecology is that men and women are present in the varieties of environmental philosophy with most of the deep ecologists being men while women take up the ecofeminism (Benson, 2000). The criticism of deep ecology by ecofeminist states that masculinity form of deep ecology can be noted in its integrated program and language as well as style.
The contrast between ecofeminism and deep ecology
In this part I will focus on ecofeminist criticism of deep ecology as well as the counterclaims from deep ecologist that ecofeminism is shallow that it does not get to the core of environmental matters. This is since it focusses on domination of other things except nature, as the center of deep ecology is the desire for new awareness. Today, human has lost touch with its environment and hence lack the rhythm it brings. We have separated ourselves from the world. Deep ecologists hence focus on the pre-modern and traditions for ways on how to experience life (Keller, 2010). Generally, the critique focusses on human and nature that arises in the past. As noted, ecofeminists uphold that domination of the environment is of great concern. For instance, Warren agrees that deep ecology makes an error in opting to limit a bad dualism (Pojman, and Pojman, 2011). Ecofeminism like Warren raise concern on how nature has become distant issue for ecologists with the notion that they have to be relate to nature just like to dualists.
Cheney tries to present a picture of how we can conceive our relationships with people and other living organisms (Benson, 2000). His focus is turned to love, care and friendship. He is of the belief that deep ecologists show their connection to traditions through sources and images. Even with this, deep ecology is still androcentric and different from ecofeminist.
Considering there are close relations between analysis and solution, the contrast that exists between deep ecology’s treatments from its remedies just to know where deep ecology is missing. Warren’s focus on logic dominance focusses on diagnosis while Cheney is keen on prescriptions. According to Fox, Warren shows that the logic of dominance noticed in deep ecology sees the source of naturism as its sexism and racism (Norris, 2012). He goes on to add that anthropomorphism is known to deep ecologists as the logic and attitude in human relationships, these ecologists tend to focus on a tendency of egalitarianism. Adding to this, deep ecologists are on the same page as ecofeminists that men are to a great extent vulnerable in the history of ecological down fall than women.
Human centeredness is the target of deep ecology hence Fox claims, contrary to Cheney as well as other ecofeminists, that deep ecology is not androcentric. Warren disagrees with this and states that feminism has to be ecological since the domination of nature and women are one and any environmental philosophy has to be feminist (Keller, 2010). This is due to historical accuracy, and the domination of women and nature. This exchange between Warren and Cheney stresses upon the contrast that logic of domination is brought about by values.
Deep ecologists, focusses on abstract inequality that exists between humans and other people while ecofeminists is opposed to the idea of domination and historical values that arise in the dominance of entities. Fox backs deep ecology as opposed to the criticism by disagreeing that anthropocentrism is the most fundamental form of legitimation that has been applied to support domination be it of nature, women or groups of people. He is of the opinion that these social classes have not made their position valid on grounds of capitalists or westerners but on the grounds but on the grounds that they have exemplified the aspect of humanness.
Fox goes on to support deep ecology as being non-sexist by stating that ecofeminists are guilty of over-focusing on the dominance of women and its connection with the dominance to nature. Considering the logic of human centeredness, it can be applied to validate dominance of what appears to lack magic essence. According to Fox, the reason ecofeminists cannot give the same measure of dominance to people of color or poor people is due to detraction from purity that ecofeminists opt to give their own concern with androcentrism (Protopapadakis, 2012). Additionally, the charges could be used with the same force to ecofeminist focus on androcentrism.
Ecofeminism and deep ecology have aspects that are quite common without regard to their differences. However, there have been major tensions between ecofeminism and deep ecology. In a focus on ecofeminist criticism, Michael Zimmerman (2001) has shown clearly the differences that exists between the two. The proponents of ecofeminist state that deep ecology talks of gender neutrality which is a form of human dominance on nature when in reality it is male dominance. Extensive backing has been placed on this view that it shows the vital ecofeminist criticism of deep ecology. For instance, a criticism advanced by Janet Biehl states that deep ecology is that for ecofeminists the aspect of anthropocentrism is extensively an issue. By including women in anthropocentrism, deep ecologists extensively condemn women as being anthropocentric as they look down upon men. Marti Kheel adds that deep ecologists are focused more on challenging the anthropocentric world while for ecofeminists, it is the androcentric view of the earth that is key of the required shift (Light, and Rolston, 2003). On the other hand, the first contrast in focus, as brought out by Charlene Spretnak states that in her comparison of deep ecology and ecofeminism arises from anthropocentrism against androcentrism (Baird, and Palmer, 2005). Though Jim Cheney argues that it is not right to attribute Zimmerman’s creation as showing the vital ecofeminist charge beside ecology. He argues that the vial ecofeminist charge is not that ecology keen in anthropocentrism while the issue is real with androcentrism while the issue is that deep ecology is in real sense androcentric. This tends to suggest a concession to deep ecology as it shows that ecofeminist have no concern for deep ecology as long as it makes sense. It is clear that the vital ecofeminist charge against deep ecology is vivid and an intense one alongside that from deep ecology which talks about gender-neutral anthropocentric as the source of domination of nature where in reality it is androcentrism.
The debate looks to warn us on the philosophies before we criticize them, they additionally show us that the process of exchange is formative of the state. The Analysis by warren on logic domination presents that at least some ecofeminists know what Fox calls ‘human centeredness’ is the issue. He contends that ecofeminists can be found guilty of transgressions of which they call deep ecologists if they state that androcentrism is the issue and mean that men are naturally or applied the logic of domination (Pojman, and Pojman, 2011). As Warren adds, matriarchy is not the answer to patriarchy to a greater extent that than nature and allowing people to die as a solution to the issue of destruction. From this it is clear that ecofeminist contrast themselves from radical feminists in denouncing the method applied by Fox who accuses them of being drawn to embrace.
Ecofeminists have to avoid focusing on the oppression of women and ignoring the domination of colored people and aboriginals. Fox adds that ecofeminist try to connect itself to ecological issues. On the other hand, deep ecologists are less susceptible to be acquire serious relations between domination of the environment and other forms of dominance then ecofeminists. The biggest challenge faced by deep ecologist to ecofeminist is the shallowness it has (Baird, and Palmer, 2005). Arne Naess states that philosophy is deep when it comprises of an ultimate premises through which belief and action is found. Fox states that ecofeminists display their deficiency in depth in the criticism of deep ecology for not seeing the source of environmental destruction is androcentrism as opposed to anthropocentrism.
As opposed to deep ecology, ecofeminist is simple as it does not give credence to factors at any instance. Such tendency does not acquire ecological basis with regard to the human society. In a logical sense to it, simplistic thinking is noticed as it means that the answer to ecological issues is close to out us and what we have to do it sort it out. Fox seems to state that the nature and women relation is a past incident which if it is not made patriarchy, would result to ecofeminism indistinct from other feminist ideologies. The connection between ecology and feminism is an accident as it does not run from philosophical grounds of ecofeminism. In reality, it is taken up by ecofeminism is taken up by ecological aspects as the past has connected women and nature (Light, and Rolston, 2003). This criticism is not accepted by ecological aspects as it involves vital historical aspects. Hence ecofeminism and deep ecology are shallow. The idea that women have suffered from the use of logic domination has to be well understood to by ecologists, in the platonic basis, as a logic separable from the reality in the past, as opposed to the lack of the absence in ecofeminist thinking. Ecofeminism is different from deep ecology.
The difference between deep ecology and ecofeminism is based in the root cause of environmental malaise (Baird and Palmer, 2005). In the grounds held by deep ecologists, it is seen as the anthropocentric world-focus that is laid the blame. The two notions regarding deep ecology; self-realization and biospherical egalitarianism are hence made to handle to handle this self-centered global aspect. Ecofeminist in their opinion argue that androcentric global focus should be accorded blame. According to them, it is not only human beings that are to be removed from their setting but men.
The main way to know the difference is to focus on the conceptions of the self. Deep ecologists focus on anthropocentrism and the ideology of an ‘expanded self’ and see gender-neutral as a concept of the self. On the side of ecofeminism, androcentric focus is the comprehension that men and women, in a patriarchal setting, feel the world and hence their conceptions of self in different manner. While anthropocentric global focus sees human as the center of the natural world, the androcentric focus shows that the world is different to men (Keller, 2010). Feminists are of the opinion that their identities, as opposed to men, are not established by elevating the natural setting. On the other hand, a patriarchal society, women as seen as devalued, an identity they have acquired for a long period of time.
Conclusion
The paper has been able to focus on the contrast that exists between deep ecology and ecofeminism. It is noticed that there is a rise in concern of nonhuman setting with the rise of Great Goddess and Divine as a whole. In an attempt to correct and display the contrast of women, most feminists are bound to neglect the earth and the divine. To men and women it is noticed that the ability to care for other people cannot be noted with the patriarchal comprehension of divinity.
The essay has tried to show that there is a contrast between deep ecology and ecofeminism and that they cannot co-exit together. In support of this, there has been feminine bias and color discrimination by most deep ecologists and efforts have been made to try and reconcile them. Women and men have been affected negatively by patriarchal aspects. What is needed is cooperation and trust and not discrimination and fights for domination from the deep ecologists and ecofeminists. Through this, the world would be freed from the issues relating to dominance and exploitation.
References
Baird, J. and Palmer, C. (2005). “The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and Its Parallels.” In Environmental Philosophy: Critical Concepts in the Environment, Vol. 2: Society and Politics. London: Routledge, pp. 109-30.
Benson, J. (2000). “Transpersonal Ecology and the Varieties of Identification.” In Environmental Ethics: An Introduction with Readings. London: Routledge, pp. 253-62.
Keller, D. (2010). “Transpersonal Ecology.” In Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 245-251.
Keller, D. (2010).”Why Study Environmental Ethics?” In Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 35-36.
Norris, N. (2012). Words for a Small Planet: Ecocritical Views. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield.
Light, A. and Rolston, H. (2003). “Deep Ecology: A New Philosophy of our Time?” In Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 252-61
Pojman, L. and Pojman, P. (2011). “Deep Ecology: A New Philosophy of our Time?” In Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, pp. 149-155.
Protopapadakis, E. (2012). “Forms of Harm and our Obligations to Humans and Other Animals.” In Animal Ethics: Past and Present Perspectives. Berlin: Logos Verlag, pp. 197-221.
Spash, C. (2009). “Ecophilosophy and Science.” In Ecological Economics: Critical Concepts in the Environment, Vol. 3: Environmental Values. London: Routledge.
Zimmerman, M. et al. (2001). “The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and its Parallels.” In Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, pp. 218-35.
