can a Deep Ecologist’ also be an Ecofeminist?
Introduction
In this day and age, there have been vast advancement in industrial activities that is attributed to technology. However, issues arise in if we are able to survive the adverse industrial practices that we have depended upon for so long. This leads to the debate regarding the ecology and ecofeminism that maintain that a set of Western elements have to be changed if we are to live in this earth in an appropriate way (Benson, 2000, 253). In what follows, I shall focus on how deep ecologists on one hand and ecofeminists on the other hand, would talk about how these western elements have modelled the society so as to result to industrial waste. Though they may share certain critical appraisals like in the western culture, deep ecological and ecofeminist views are not on the whole in agreement (Zimmerman, et al, 2001, 254). From this, the contrast between deep ecology and ecofeminism will be discussed.
Deep Ecology
Deep ecology is a radical form of environment shift that are of the view that the environmental problems arises from the history of western culture. A basic distinction between deep ecology and reform environmentalism lays in the initial one being a non-anthropocentric in its attribute to the natural world and the latter being an anthropocentric (Keller, 2010, 246).
Resource conservation is the most popular human-based form of reform environmentalism. Form its stance, we are supposed to conserve resources as our duty for future generations of mankind. Even though it is extensive, resource conservation is not globally allowed. Certain people argue that in addition to a duty to nature, we are obligated to the future lives of mankind.
Safeguarding of the wilderness appears at first as not directed to man but the natural world from man’s advancement. Rodman states that the safeguarding of the natural world is an anthropocentric aspect as it looks to safeguard the natural world as the place for religious experiences or for its aesthetic aspect (Keller, 2010, 255). The protection of the natural world than becomes subtly anthropocentric; we are supposed to protect it for the future lives.
Another version of reform environmentalism is the moral aspect. From this aspect, the environmental arises from our unethical handling of things that are not human in nature. A way to protect them is to display that they are supposed to be accorded moral concern or legal standing (Benson, 2000, 253). There are however issues with these method as the standard applied to know if nonhuman elements are morally worthy are to a great extent acquired from models termed to be definitive of humanity like awareness. From this anthropocentrism is noticed.
Rodman’s fourth factor of ecological awareness is ecological sensibility. Considering there are varied models to deep ecology, one that is agreeable is industrial contamination, extinction of animals, degradation of environment and nuclear extinction which are all signs of anthropocentrism (Benson, 2000, 255). Through getting to learn that humanity will be losing its existence, we will be able to realize to live on earth with other species to thrive and live according to evolutionary destiny. Anthropocentric models would be substituted by biocentric egalitarianism. Issues would arises, like when cutting down trees, but they would not stop human activity. The issues would rise with the notion their rights have to be considered while coming up with a decision. In reference to Norwegian philosopher and naturalist Aren Naess, when we live in regard to deep ecologists ideologies, there would be fulfillment of existence and autonomy of nature from being exploited (Benson, 2000, 258). From this it is clear that only deep ecologists show the path above abuse on appreciation, above anthropocentrism to man’s maturity that live in the restrictions that make it possible for other elements to be successful too.
According to Warwick Fox, the main idea of deep ecology is there lacks a divide of humanity and other things. Humanity is focused on dualism like mind and body or man and nature (Benson, 2000, 260). This dualism leads to a divide off its dark side- morality and reliance. Deep ecology opts to another way to Newton’s atomistic focus of the world.
A good number of deep ecologists are of the opinion that their ideology is in line with Eastern religions and mystical traditions in Western religions like unity. This realization focusses in the restrictions brought about by dualism and its rationality (Keller, 2010, 36). Rationality is used in ways that tend to limit its morality by ruling everything. The notion that everything is connected would make us handle each other and natural things too with respect.
Deep ecology hence looks to alter the major elements that are responsible for humanity’s destruction of anthropocentric, dualism and abstract rationalism as well as freedom. They are of the opinion that reform environmentalism as well as tight laws against pollution, extinction of species, human growth and destruction among others are vital in the short run. In the long run, reformism would not be enough to protect destruction of the environment (Benson, 2000, 264). It would be only revolution of man’s understanding of oneself and nature that will enable huge changes in their trends.
Ecofeminism
When seen from the outside appearance, ecofeminism and deep ecology are common in terms of atomism, dualism and abstract rationality. In reference to feminist critics, however, since deep ecology has been made to a great extent by men, it has been attributed by inadvertent patriarchal biases. While the deep ecologists talk of hindrances of anthropocentrism or human-based the ecofeminist talk of the barriers of androcentrism or man-based (Spash, 2009, 65). In regard to most ecofeminists, patriarchalism results to the loss of the earth. Since deep ecologists are not aware of the basic duty of patriarchy in the growth of atomism, dualism, freedom and abstract rationality, deep ecologists are of a different meaning to the ecofeminsits. The ecofeminsits are of the notion that only deep ecologists are able to be respectful of the impacts of patriarchal culture by their consciousness (Zimmerman, et al. 2001, 218). It is just from this that they are able to know the range to which what they conceive of the self, nature and others elements are modelled by patriarchal elements,
Contemporary feminism is a specially complicated movement. In the early 1960s and 70s, most western feminists saw the issue as women being systematically barred the educational and economic chances vital for them to strive on the same level as men. Feminism means striving to get similar rights in the political and economic stages. Slowly, however, feminists have started to notice that it may not be clever for women to copy roles that are already defined and modelled for and by men. Feminist theorists started to focus on the contrasts that exists between men and women. At the end, they are not only different from men, but they are way wiser. While initially feminists had stressed that the contrasts that existed between men and women were cultural from the start, a few feminists started to take an essentialist stance, in regard to which patriarchal culture changes or hides the vital feminine that is the right for every woman.
Some feminists have started to point to the issues with this stance. First of all, it appears that the misogynists stance that women are majorly or naturally different. The misogynist acquires the opinion that these natural contrasts lead to women to become differently inferior while for the feminists argue that it makes them stronger. Any form of female superiority places the very hierarchy to which feminists acquired and strived for in patriarchy (Zimmerman, et al., 2001, 220). A few ecofeminists got to the extent to talk like men have errors and that only women are able to manage the environmental crisis as women are more suited to the trends of nature and feelings more when compared to men. However, women are similarly limited by patriarchy, and a few men are to a great extent thankful for their association to the natural world. A good number of ecofeminists are aware of what is required is transformation of women and men (Spash, 2009, 84). Ecofeminists, though, are in a position to add that most men are not able since the marginal position of women in the past of patriarchy could have safeguarded them from some form of crippling influences that is in most men.
A good number of ecofeminsits are of the opinion that the technological assault that faces the earth arises from the direction in the past that appeared to be virulent in Europe. In the past, prior to the rise of agriculturally based towns and start of Goddess-slaying, there lacked patriarchy (Norris, 2012, 34). The society was not hierarchical, authoritarian and dualistic. The worship of man was directed at the Goddess, the female divinity termed women and men as the origin of all life and goodness. Slowly, however, Goddess was substituted by the new God. Feminists have in most cases termed the new God as the projection of the male’s hierarchical, patriarchal, dominance and authority attribute. While the Goddess implants goodness and basic aspect of the body and Earth, the God implants the goodness and basic aspect of the soul and heaven. However this is not the correct interpretation of God.
Erich Neumann states that the rise of God is in line with the advancement of man’s awareness from the collective state to the individualistic state (Norris, 2012, 46). God is seen as a symbol of clarity of the free-willed, rational and self-assertive. From this selfhood to be applicable, in reference to Jung, the ego has to move from the embrace of the Mother who shows the organic-bodily and the subconscious domain of man’s existence.
Psychologists Ken Wilber, though argues that the rise of God the Father resulted to the new level in man’s awareness of divinity, a level that is in line with and made feasible by the Goddess-IO (Baird, and Palmer, 2005, 109). Wilber sees the Mother as a symbol of early human’s conception of the Nature, – source of life and death that has to be placated by ritual and sacrifice. On the other hand, the Goddess is a symbol of the ideologies of a limited number into the transcendent Divine Unity that leads to the creative origin of things. This means that the Goddess is the connecting aspect of transcendence that enables the Mother to exist. As opposed to the Mother, who desires ritual sacrifice, the Goddess needs no sacrifice of the body but of the self to the Divine Unity that is the source.
The God as a father can be termed to as the advancement of the self and rose with the Goddess. God did not have to be the grounds for patriarchy. Though as men were individuated their identification with God, the horror of individuation resulted to show that I he is all-powerful, different from all other earthly self. Men made God to appear like them making men to distant themselves from women, nature and themselves and other things that connected them to the sense of reliance (Baird, and Palmer, 2005, 120). Men justified what they did by showing what they did by showing women as being bound to Mother and Earth. Women were not capable to be individualistic.
The past of consciousness has hence changed to be the story of man’s advancement. The male strives hard to make himself free from the subconscious state and powers of the mother. This is met by slaying the best- Great Mother does he meet individuation. In reference to ecofeminists, modern technology has played a great role in male’s fight to defeat death and decline through dominance of environment, himself, women and other subhuman forms. The destruction of the environment by man shows his denial to take responsibility for his own wastes, for which he has allocated to women. Organic wastes, precisely remind man of his mortality, his association to earth and woman. Through dumping garbage in Mexico, wasteful patriarchal trend showed its exploitative tendency to the less fortunate (Baird, and Palmer, 2005, 121). The female too would be subjected to such treatments. She can be taught on how to handle herself in a linear manner and see the earth as an infinite resource for human activity.
It may be seen that there are certain similarities between deep ecological and ecofeminists prevalent in certain cultures in the world. Ecofeminists state, however, that patriarchal culture is controlled not just by elements of dualism, rationality, autonomy an atomism, but by the vital element of androcentrism or patriarchy. Even though for androcentrism, similar elements are stated in the deep ecological criticism of western culture, as an example, ecofeminists argue that there are major differences that exists between deep ecological an ecofeminist aspect (Zimmerman, et al. 2001, 223). This is since major differences in the male and female aspect of the self, men and women undergo the world in a different manner.
The Contrast between Ecofeminism and Deep Ecology
Considering there are close relations between analysis and solution, the contrast that exists between deep ecology and ecofeminism. While 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 (Protopapadakis, 2012, 200). 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 that they have exemplified the aspect of humanity.
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 (Protopapadakis, 2012, 199). 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, 197). Additionally, the argument could be used with the same force to ecofeminist focus on androcentrism.
An ecofeminist criticism, Michael Zimmerman (2001) has shown clearly that differences clearly 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 (Zimmerman, 2001, 231). Extensive backing has been placed on this view that it shows the vital ecofeminist criticism of deep ecology. 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 vital for the required shift (Light, and Rolston, 2003, 251). Though Jim Cheney argues that it is not right to attribute Zimmerman’s creation as showing the vital ecofeminist charge beside ecology (Light, and Rolston, 2003, 252).
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’ (Pojman, and Pojman, 2011, 153). He opposes 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, 149). As Warren adds, matriarchy is not the answer to patriarchy. 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 (Pojman, and Pojman, 2011, 150).
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 than ecofeminists. The biggest challenge faced by deep ecologist to ecofeminism is its shallowness (Baird, and Palmer, 2005, 176). Arne Naess states that philosophy is deep when it comprises of an ultimate premises through which belief and action is found. While 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 and not anthropocentrism (Baird, and Palmer, 2005, 178).
Conclusion
It is clear that the rise of concern for natural elements has connected with the renaissance of Goddess and the Divine as a whole. In an attempt to focus on the discussion of mishandling of women and dominance of men, most feminists and men alike tend to ignore the earth and divine. They start to realize that our ability to take care for other people and the environment is related to our ability to appreciate divinity in all of us. Generally, the environment’s survival is reliant on human activity and vice versa.
The paper has been able to focus on the contrast that exists between deep ecology and ecofeminism. It has discussed the aspect of dominance, autonomy, abstract rationality and patriarchy. Though with certain element that are similar the essay has tried to show that there are contrasts 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.
