What's Wrong With Ecofeminism.pdf

101ep04.qxd 02/05/2001 16:08 Page 52

What’s Wrong with Ecofeminism?

LUCY SARGISSON

Where to begin? Ecofeminism is essentialist, biologist and it lacks political

efficacy. Ecofeminism is inconsistent, intellectually regressive and it lacks

rigour. Ecofeminism is the fluffy face of feminism. Challengers of this view

of ecofeminism insist that ecofeminism is scientific, profound, and essential

to human and non-human survival. Criticisms of ecofeminism, they insist,

are inaccurate, infected by patriarchy and/or simply naïve. They tell us that

ecofeminism is political [ Salleh, 1997 ]; ecofeminism is practical [ Sturgeon,

1997 ]; ecofeminism is complex [ Birkeland, 1993 ]; ecofeminism is ethical

science [ Mies and Shiva, 1988 ]; and that ecofeminism is the salvation of the

world [ Spretnak, 1990; Plant, 1989 ]. Women are said to be closer to nature

than men are, and so only they can save the planet [ Starhawk, 1990 ].

Debates regarding the efficacy and rigour of ecofeminism are well

established and I have little to add to them. Critiques like those offered by

Janet Biehl are thorough and thoughtful [ Biehl, 1991 ]. Such critiques of

ecofeminism are on the whole accurate and appropriate but, I suggest,

what’s really wrong with ecofeminism is that it denies its full potential.

Ecofeminism is utopian in all senses of that term and it fails to acknowledge

and exploit this. Understanding of this allows us to see both the value and

the dangers of ecofeminist thought. Utopianism is both the beauty and the

beast of ecofeminism.

Utopianism

(1) Utopians are the world’s dreamers. Utopias are inspirational. Utopias

offer imaginative alternatives to real political and social dilemmas.

Utopias are the creative expressions of political desire.

Utopias work from the margins of fantasy whilst addressing political desires

and frustrations of the present. Utopias permit the politically discontented to

view the present from afar and to think critically about this from another

perspective. Many historical utopias employ the convention of a `visitor’ as

a vehicle for this. It provokes a certain sense of estrangement, which has a

subversive political function. Krishan Kumar suggests that utopias are a

particularly subversive form of political commentary, and notes that their

101ep04.qxd 02/05/2001 16:08 Page 53

WHAT’S WRONG WITH ECOFEMINISM?

authors have often experienced imprisonment and/or torture as political

dissidents. He explains thus: ‘Utopia challenges by supplying alternatives,

certainly. It shows what could be. But its most persistent function, the real

source of its subversiveness, is as a critical commentary on the

arrangements of society’ [ Kumar, 1991: 87–8 ]. As estranged texts, utopias

are able to view from an imaginary distance the society whence they

originate. In this way they present a particular challenge to the status quo .

The creativity – and fictive nature – of much utopian writing also has a

potentially transformative function. Utopias present theory as fiction and vice

versa . They create a space in which philosophical ideas can be imagined,

tested, and explored. These are all specific functions that I have elsewhere

linked in an approach to utopianism that stresses its transgressive function

[ Sargisson, 1996 ]. Briefly, I suggest, utopian thought is transgressive in three

ways: it steps over boundaries that order and separate. Examples might be

boundaries between disciplines, or conceptual boundaries, or boundaries that

establish the norms of social behaviour. It thus renders them meaningless or

emphasises their porosity. This permits the creation of a space where

previously there was none, in which new and different ways of relating to the

world can be practised. These spaces are the new place that is no place: utopias.

In Demand the Impossible Tom Moylan offers a conceptualisation of

what he calls the critical utopia [ Moylan, 1986 ]. This is a useful device. It

stresses the dual function of utopian thought that, historically, has offered

simultaneous political critique and the creation of something new. Utopian

thought, he finds, unsurprisingly, is rooted in discontent: ‘It is, at heart,

rooted in the unfulfilled needs and wants of specific classes, groups, and

individuals in their unique historical contexts’ [ Moylan, 1986: 1 ]. Its

function is oppostional: utopia opposes what he calls ‘the affirmative

culture’ [ 1986: 1 ]: ‘Utopia negates the contradictions of a social system by

forging visions of what is not yet realised either in theory or in practice. In

generating such figures of hope, utopia contributes to the open space of

opposition’ [ 1986: 1 – 2 ]. Unlike many commentators, who are concerned at

the diversity and ambiguity of contemporary utopian writing, Moylan finds

delight in this multiplicity. He sees it as historically specific and

appropriate. For him, the multiple and diverse nature of recent utopias and

utopian theory enables effective opposition to what he perceives as

capitalist hegemony. These utopias, he says, are critical in two senses:

‘“Critical” in the Enlightenment sense of critique – that is expressions of

oppostional thought, unveiling, debunking, of both the genre itself and the

historical situation. As well as “critical” in the nuclear sense of the critical

mass required to make the necessary explosive reaction [ Moylan, 1986: 10 ].

In order to be effectively critical in these ways the utopia must, says

Moylan, destroy, transform, and revive the utopian tradition, which, in its

101ep04.qxd 02/05/2001 16:08 Page 54

POLITICAL THEORY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

past and present state was and is inadequate to the task of provoking social

transformation. A fixed, finite and universal utopia of perfection cannot

adequately oppose a fixed, finite, and universal capitalist system. Only an

understanding of utopia that destroys old perceptions of the genre,

transforms them into something new and thus revives utopianism can

adequately reflect the concerns, needs, and wants of contemporary

malcontents. The critical utopia does not blueprint, but rather it privileges

social change in process. It retains imperfection.

Moylan connects this critical utopianism to what he optimistically calls

a ‘new historic bloc’ of political opposition [ 1986: 11 ]. This, he says,

consists of a historically specific collection of groups, linked by the source

of their discontent. He finds the values of feminism, ecology, and

democratic socialism to infuse this bloc. These are manifested in an

opposition to certain core values embodied in capitalist economy:

‘Whatever the particular set up of social images each text sets forth, the

shared quality in all of them is a rejection of hierarchy and domination and

the celebration of emancipatory ways of being as well as the very possibility

of utopian longing itself’ [ 1986: 12 ]. An important function of utopias then

is that of transformative opposition. In some ways, I suggest, ecofeminism

may perform this function.

(2) Utopias are intellectually challenging. Utopians cross disciplinary

borderlines, utopians combine fiction with their politics and desire with

the exercise of reason.

Utopias are invariably fictions. They imagine alternative realities; they

stretch the conventions of the present; they re-present the world to us for

inspection from another perspective; they imagine worlds transformed. As

such they are an ideal place from whence to engage in political critique, and

in which to explore alternative approaches to the world. The fact that they

are fictive does not, however, mean that they are invariably articulated in the

form of fiction. Utopias are expressed in a multitude of forms. Ernst Bloch

identifies utopianism (a utopian impulse) as immanent in popular culture.

His sources range from architecture to medicine; music to religion; art to

philosophy [ Bloch, 1986 ]. For Vincent Geoghegan, the ‘classic’ utopia (the

literary model established by Thomas More) is ‘but one manifestation of

utopianism’ [ Geoghegan, 1987: 2 ]. Ruth Levitas, in her thorough

examination of the canon, finds the focus on literary form to issue an

unnecessarily narrow definition [ Levitas, 1990: 4 ]. Lyman Tower Sargent,

the major bibliographer of this field, has recently studied the utopias of the

religious right in America as well as those of indigenous societies. This

makes the study of utopianism a potentially endless process.

101ep04.qxd 02/05/2001 16:08 Page 55

WHAT’S WRONG WITH ECOFEMINISM?

This interdisciplinarity gives to utopian studies a special place in

contemporary and historical traditions of scholarship. Research from even

the narrowest approach to utopia (as a piece of fiction) involves cross-

disciplinary work. In order to pay attention to the content of a given utopia

we have to engage in multi- or cross-disciplinary study of, say, theology,

politics, and literature. Ecofeminism is quite extraordinary in its diversity of

form and forces upon the scholar similar challenges. Its utopias find

expression in poems, stories, academic (and pseudo-academic) essays, to

name but a few.

(3) Utopianism has a dark side: utopians can be dangerous, utopias can be

totalitarian. The imposition of a utopian blueprint can produce political

exclusion, stagnancy and negation. Utopias in this sense are the death

of politics.

I have elsewhere suggested that this is indeed so and that utopias of

perfection which have a blueprinting function are politically and

intellectually dangerous. However, not all utopias blueprint an ideal future,

not all utopians desires to realise a vision of perfection, and not all

utopianism is culpable of the ‘crime’ of closure and the imposition of a will

to power. Despite the fact that most contemporary feminist utopianism

evades such closures, ecofeminism does, I suggest, manifest some of these

darker tendencies.

Ecofeminist Utopianism

(i) Style

Ecofeminism is inspirational in a number of ways but absolutely not for its

blueprints. Ecofeminism adopts a visionary tone. Ecofeminists dare to dream.

Exploration of one ecofeminist utopian vision might perhaps help us to

understand this. The work of Starhawk identifies a lack in politics: this is

spirituality. Also, she proposes a shift in our consciousness of time. In an

essay ‘Power, Authority, and Mystery: Ecofeminism and Earth-based

Spirituality’, Starhawk suggests that the Pagan model of time is appropriate

to a sustainable politics of social change:

From a Pagan perspective, there is no end of time. Time is a cycle, and

cycles come around and they go around and come back again. …

That, I think, is the kind of model we need for politics. We need to see

the process of changing our society as a lifetime challenge and

commitment. Transforming consciousness so that we can preserve

and sustain the Earth is a long-term project [ Starhawk, 1990: 78 ].

101ep04.qxd 02/05/2001 16:08 Page 56

POLITICAL THEORY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

This shift would facilitate awareness that the project is of unending

duration. It would profoundly and appropriately alter our attitude to

ecological politics. An understanding of the interconnectedness of the issues

facing environmentalists is, she says, an essential step towards lasting

transformation. Starhawk explains by reference to a diagram, in which are

illustrated:

… the tree of life and the magic circle. The magic circle is a circle of

the elements: air, fire, water, and earth. The tree has roots and a core,

a center, a heart that’s the same as the circle, and it has branches. If we

think about it, all of these issues then we see as being so

interconnected can fit into that magic circle [ Starhawk, 1990: 80 ].

Community, says Starhawk, is a necessary perquisite for this. Community

permits the individual to give energy when she can and promotes sustained

input. This, she says, is because even if one person needs to rest there are

others who will feel active. The community as whole, then, creates

sustained movement. ‘There are going to be times when we’re active and

it’s exciting and we’re obsessed by action, and there are going to be times

when we pull back and nurture ourselves and heal and take care of

ourselves’ [ ibid. ]

Her emphasis is on being kind to ourselves but also of creating social

and political situations and contexts in which individual commitment and

effort is most effectively utilised. Community nourishes the individual and

vice versa. In addition to this pragmatic utilitarianism is a certain

mysticism: ‘Finally, I think that the spell we need to cast, the model we need

to create, has to be open to mystery, to the understanding that we don’t know

everything about what’s going on and we don’t know exactly what to do

about it’ [ ibid: 79 ].

The poem below articulates Starhawk’s vision of where all of this might

take us:

And so the time comes when all the people of the earth

can bring their gifts to the fire

can look into each other’s faces

unafraid

…

Hear the earth sing

of her loveliness

her hillock lands, her valleys

her furrows well-watered

her untamed wild places

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: