While women in the west are keen on ecofeminism, the ideologies of women in the global south who identify as ecofeminists differ. Vandana Shiva’s grew up in Dehra Dun, she developed an interest in environmentalism during a home visit. She discovered that her favorite childhood forest had been cleared and a stream drained ready for an apple orchard to be planted. She discovered it was the Green Revolution and big corporations that led to monoculture. The pharmeceudical industry also patents many things in India, like tumeric. The two perspectives can be categorized as a western perspective and the other as non-western perspective.
Bina Agarwal writes that “third world women are dependent on nature for drawing sustenance for themselves, their families, their societies”. In my previous blog post, I mentioned that Hobgood-Oster (a western ecofeminist) defined ecofeminism as a philosophical and political movement that combines ecological concerns with feminist ones that resulted from a patriarchal society. According to Hodgood-Oster, the goal of ecofeminism is to eliminate all forms of domination while recognizing the connections between humans and nature. Karen Warren, another western ecofeminist identified eight connections between women and nature. Those being historical, conceptual, empirical and experimental, symbolic, epistemological, political, ethical, and theoretical. Both Hodgood-Oster and Warren only consider the perspectives of western women. I don’t think they understand or are even aware of another perspective. A non-western perspective differs from a western one in that they focus more on gender and environmental degregation. Women of the global south often have to get water for themselves and their families, they are more at risk for danger than if men were to get the water. They also have to worry about corporations and industries taking their land or patenting herbs they have been using for years. The western ecofeminist goal is to take away the male domination rooted in nature layer by layer. A non-western ecofeminist goal is to maintain their land. While these two perspectives have their differences, they are also similar in some ways. Both types of ecofeminists seek to preserve nature.
I personally find both perspectives very interesting. As for the western perspective, I can relate more to that one than the non-western one. I have always felt uncomfortable when reading about how nature was described in an almost sexual way. Although, I can’t relate to the non-western perspective, I can understand it.
Hello Winnie,
I have to say that I agree that while both the Non-Western and Western perspectives are both interesting, the Western one is more relatable due to the fact that we live within the U.S. However, I did find Agarwal’s description of Non-Western ecofeminism not only very interesting, but also powerful. Within her essay Agarwal states women living within non-western countries such as India are “dependent on nature ‘for drawing sustenance for themselves, their families, their societies’” (Agarwal 124). This quote stood out to me due to the fact that as someone who lives within the western culture I am not reliant on the local river to sustain my family or myself. I am simply able to open a faucet and be certain that water will literally be at my fingertips. As result, I found Non-Western ecofeminism to be powerful, because these women are forced to take action. Personally living in the U.S. I understand the importance of taking care of our environment, however it’s easy to sweep things under the rug at times like global worming when my crops are not being effected nor the river in which I get my water.
I think understanding perspectives and supporting them even if we can not relate to, is one of the greatest strengths we can have. I agree there is a dominance issue occurring. Going off of your statement of what Hodgood- Oster defines ecofeminsim as; I would say it is up lifting. There is a need to not go back to nature, but to recognize nature. I feel the overall goal of ecofeminists is to try to speak up for and lift up those who cannot do it themselves. Nature can speak loud, but our cities are good at ignoring her cries. I believe what we need to move into is continuing capitalism, but with a high affinity to not always seek profits, but to seek what will benefit the most for nature, animal, men, and women of all creeds and sexualities for the betterment. Essentially, we can no longer seek out maximization for profits sake, but seek maximization for the worlds’ sake.