Ecofeminism - An Unlikely Partnership With Psychology

Ecofeminism, What it it? Explore and critique its socio-psychological implications

The term 'ecofeminisme' was first used by Francois d'Eaubonne in 1974. It encompasses the concepts of both feminism and ecology. Feminism is the movement to 'end sexist oppression. It involves the elimination of any and all factors that contribute to the continued and systematic domination or subordination of women' (Warren, 1990;p126). Ecological feminism 'is the position that there are important connections - historical, symbolic, theoretical - between the domination of women and the domination of nonhuman nature' (Warren, 1990;p125). Linked by a conceptual framework through a socially constructed lens, traditional western patriarchal values are used to produce the logic of oppression over women and nature, through the combined use of value-hierarchical thinking, value dualisms, and the logic of domination (Warren, 1987). The gendering of nature as feminine also provides insight into the 'twin dominations' of women and nature (Legler, 1997). More recently, ecofeminism has expanded to include the fight for an end to all oppression, be it sexism, naturism, racism, ageism or classism (Gaard, 1993). Critics of ecofeminism argue that it is a concept that has become too pluralistic (Sargisson, 2001) and may not be vaid when applied cross-culturally (Li, 1993). Below, in consideration of some topics studied in social psychology this semester, is a closer exploration of ecofeminist thought, including the socio-psychological implications of ecofeminism. Included is a look at ecofeminism's claims of a conceptual link between attitudes, values and behaviours, including prejudice formation, and the logic of domination and oppression.

Conceptual Framework and The Logic of Domination

A conceptual framework is essentially an internal script which a person develops in relation to their beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviours. This conceptual framework then influences how a person views themselves and their world. An oppressive conceptual framework essentially attempts to explain, justify and maintain the dominative relationships which promote subordination (Warren, 1987). According to Warren (1990), there are three main features of thinking in such an oppressive conceptual framework; those of hierarchical thinking, value dualisms and the logic of domination. Hierarchical thinking involves placing greater value on items or things which are 'up' an order as opposed to 'down'. Value dualisms are an oppositional way of thinking which sees opposites as exclusives, assigning greater value to one in a pair. The logic of domination involves a 'value system' that allows the justification of subordination, usually through a feature that one party (the dominate) will possess that the other may not (Warren, 1990). Ecofeminists argue that such thinking rooted in a patriarchal oppressive conceptual framework leads to the dominatin and subordination of women and consequently nature by association.

The Nature Connection

Nature and environmental domination become a feminist issue not just because of this underlying conceptual framework, but because feminism historically deals with the past and present material conditions experienced in women's lives. Lives which are commonly interlinked with nature and the surrounding environment, for not just spiritual, but also day to day subsistence needs (Gaard, 1993). This ecological link between women and nature becomes even more evident when the historical gendering of nature as 'feminine' has been utilized to further rationalize domination over both by patriarchal systems (Hawkins, 1998). By feminizing nature, for example 'mother' nature, western intellectual traditions have established a 'patriarchal environmental ethic' which sees nature as female (Legler, 1997; Gaard, 1993). Consequently, utilizing the patriarchal conceptual framework discussed above, if nature is female, culture is conceived of as male and hence superior, thus leading to the maintenance of domination (Legler).

Criticisms

More recently, ecofeminism has been reconceived as a movement opposed to all forms of oppression and domination, be they sexism, naturism, racism, ageism or classism. Nevertheless, this conceptual pluralism may also be a potential problem for ecofeminism (Sargisson, 2001). Addressing such a broad range of issues under one label may mean losing sights of the initial objectives of ecofeminism, that of bringing to light the twin dominations of women and nature. In addition, there are concerns regarding the validity of ecofeminism cross-culturally; it is thought that the commonly assumed link between women and nature is not always present cross-culturally (Gaard, 1993). Li (1993) finds that on a 'global level . . . the theoretical grounding of ecofeminism appears to be problematic' (p272). It seems that culturally speaking, dualism may not be the root of all oppression phenomenon around the world. For example, in China there is an absence of transcendent dualism, yet there is still oppression of women (Li). Ecofeminism should perhaps then be treated as a culturally specific comment on western patriarchal society, even though it references other cultural ideals.

Ecofeminism and Psychology

Analyzing ecofeminism with psychological constructs and methodologies seems to be an issue of confounding frames of reference (Wang, 1999). Wang points out that psychology has grown out of androcentric and eurocentric traditions that perhaps are not altogether unlike the conceptual frameworks that ecofeminism argues so vehemently against. However, psychologically speaking, ecofeminism deals with prejudice and the attitudes that lead to the rationalization of oppression. In one study conducted by Wang (1999), he proposed analyzing the relationship between attitudes and the propensity for a person to employ the logic of domination through various socio-psychological variables. Psychological constructs related to the logic of domination and oppression include authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO) and attitudes towards women. Wang concluded that 'the logic of domination subscribed by right-wing authoritarians appears to subserve patriarchal sexism as well as the anthropocentric belief that humans are above the rest of nature' (p2421). In addition to the concepts mentioned above, it appears that SDO may offer the greatest contribution in confirming the ecofeminist links between hierarchical and dominative thinking.

SDO is a group based theory in which social group conflict is minimized by the development of an ideology that allows for the formation of hierarchies (Sidanius, Liu, Pratto & Shaw, 1994). These hierarchies value one group more (or higher up) than another, creating an environment in which discrimmination and social inequality can occur. SDO predicts an attitudinal orientation that preferences group hierarchies over equalities. A study by Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth and Malle (1994) found that men were more likely to exhibit SDO than women, and that SDO was a significant predictor of positive attitudes towards hierarchical thinking in many social areas including sexism, naturism, nationalism and cultural elitism. Psychologically speaking, the hierarchical arguments of ecofeminist theory appear to be gaining some validation in the development of prejudices. This highlights the importance of ecofeminist theory in the formation of social attitudes and prejudice within western society.

Broader implications for socio-psychological applications lie in the exploration of respectful acknowledgement of differences among humans. As discussed above, the conceptual framework critiqued in ecofeminism exposes the logic of oppression, and in turn value and attitude formation in regard to prejudice in western society. Prejudice when defined as 'a negative feeling or attitude toward an individual based solely on his or her membership in a particular group' (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008; p436) clearly evokes the hierarchical thinking and value dualisms present not only in psychological concepts such as SDO and authoritarianism, but also ecofeminist theory. Furthermore, ecofeminism focuses on a contextualist ethic of relationships and community, one which addresses imbalances rooted in our social ecology (Gaard, 1993). Warren (1990) reminds us that ecofeminism seeks to acknowledge that the social problems of domination of women and nature that exist in our community today, are primarily due to historical and socioeconomic condtions. Perhaps most importantly, ecofeminism advocates a 'structurally pluralistic' approach to assessing social values, attitudes and behaviours, providing understanding that encompasses all members of society (Gaard, 1993).

Ecofeminism seeks to expose the underlying oppressive patriarchal conceptual frameworks used to justify the 'twin dominations' of women and nature. Through value hierarchical thinking, value dualisms and the logic of domination, women have historically been classified as close to nature (and somehow inferior), and subsequently, men with culture (therefore superior). The gendering of nature as feminine has also resulted in a patriarchal environment land ethic, where the domination of nature is unopposed. Exposing western conceptual frameworks used to justify domination and oppression has meant that ecofeminism has also expanded to include the fight against all forms of oppression and prejudice, be they sexism, naturism, racism, ageism or classism. Some have criticised such a move, arguing it may mean losing sight of the original cause in ecofeminism. Others have criticised ecofeminism's validity cross-culturally, contending that it should be regarded as a western patriarchal social critique, despite its efforts otherwise. While they could be considered unlikely allies, ecofeminism's contributions to psychology appear to be most important when evaluating values, attitudes and behaviour in relation to the formation of prejudice and rationalization of oppression within society. Overall, ecofeminism's ultimate aim (and perhaps greatest contribution), is to establish a society in which 'difference does not breed domination' (Warren, 1990; p145).

References

Baumeister, R.F., & Bushman, B.J. 2008. Prejudice and Intergroup relations (pp401-438) in; Social psychology and human nature. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Gaard, G. 1993. Living interconnections with animals and nature (pp1-12) in; Gaard, G. (Ed.) Ecofeminism: women, animals, nature. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Hawkins, R. 1998. Ecofeminism and nonhumans: continuity, difference, dualism, and domination. Hypatia, 13, 158-197

Legler, G.T. 1997. Ecofeminist literary criticism (pp227-238) in; Warren, K.J. (Ed.) Ecofeminism : women, culture, nature. Indiana University Press, Indianapolis.

Li, H. 1993. A cross-cultural critique of ecofeminism (pp272-294) in; Gaard, G. (Ed.) Ecofeminism: women, animals, nature. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Pratto,F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B.J. 1994. Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.

Sargisson, L. 2001. What's wrong with ecofeminism? Environmental Politics, 10, 52-64.

Sidanius, J., Liu, J., Pratto, F., & Shaw, J. 1994. Social dominance orientation, hierarchy-attenuators and hierarchy-enhancers: social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 338-366.

Wang, A.Y. 1999. Gender and nature: a psychological analysis of ecofeminist theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2410-2424.

Warren, K.J. 1987. Feminism and ecology - making connections. Environmental Ethics, 9, 3-20.

Warren, K.J. 1990. The power and promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12, 125-146.


Appendices

Self-Assessment

Theory

I believe that in the boundary of the available word count I have covered the relevant aspects of ecofeminist theory by giving a grounding in key elements of the topic. As ecofeminism is not a theory based in psychological literature (in fact it often argues against the very methods that psychology advocates and employs) there was little, if any research to be found directly on ecofeminism itself. However, I have drawn strong parallels between the available psychological literature and ecofeminist theory, using social psychological constructs (such as SDO) to identify key psychological elements in ecofeminist's theoretical arguments.

Much of the ground breaking ecofeminst theory was developed and written primarily by one woman; Karren J Warren. The authoritative voice that she offers is why primarily I chose to use her articles to give definitions and ground the topic. Throughout the rest of the blog, I have given a varied sample of other viewpoints and writers that have also contributed significantly to the particular focus of my blog topic. While a large amount of theory is available on other elements of ecofeminism (politics, religion etc.) I chose to focus on how ecofeminist theory can speak to social psychology in a broader more fundamental sense.

Research

As mentioned above in the theory category, psychological research on ecofeminism is almost non-existent. Therefore, the psychological theory I presented to examine the possible links is necessairly brief, but I believe relevant to, and supportive of, my argument. Other ecofeminist articles I used are mainly available through a range of books that have collated articles in them, edited by senior figures in the movement. These collections provided an important source of many writer's academic work. There did not appear to have been any relevant wide-reaching reviews conducted on this topic in available materials, including journals. Many of the journals in which a large amount of material is available were unfortunately not available (or not subscribed) through any of the libraries in Canberra (UC, ANU, or National Library).

I believe that (while hindered by lack of research material on this topic) I have made a consistent attempt to provide authoratative and relevant views from the literature available. I also believe that the arguments I make where informed and supported by some of the more important sources on the subject.

Written Expression

I believe overall that I have offered a concise and pertinent analysis of ecofeminism in relation to some of the topics covered in social psychology this semester. In light of the function the introduction performed in this blog, I believe an abstract (which was optional) to be unnecessary. The layout colours in the blog I used were soft but contrasting, not to harsh for the eyes. To improve the flow of my blog I have included headings within the text underlying the key points of the topic coverage.

In the Readability analysis conducted on the body of my blog posting, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade level came in at 12.0, and the Flesch Reading Ease came in at 11.4. The Flesch Kincaid score I was satisfied with, as it is reasonable when aiming for a first year university level audience. The Flesch Reading Ease fitted into the range expected for university students (0-30), and whilist well below the suggested >42, this score is significantly influenced by long words in the text. The very nature of this subject matter and associated areas of discussion, meant it was inevitable that I use words of considerable length in order to define and cover the topic appropriately. It is for this reason that I have not altered the text in order to change the Flesch Reading Ease score.

Online Engagement

My online engagement in the second half of this semester has increased markedly. After resolving the major glitches with my previous blog 1 by creating a seperate new blog, I believe that I have made a substantial effort and contribution to my online engagement. Not only customizing my blog, but also in contributing to comments and discussions on other people's blogs and the discussion board. I have posted several in depth pieces (clearly showing the development of my knowledge and learning in relation to my Blog 2 topic and social psychology) including relevant examples of the application of ecofeminist theory. Other comments where also posted on the discussion board and other people's blogs on topics that I believed I could contribute to with an informed voice (for links see the right hand margin of my blog). I have customized my blog layout by posting a photo and a poll in relation to the blog topic, further encouraging people to engage in my topic.

While I have increased considerably in both time and effort spent on my blog and online engagement in the second half of semester, I have not had the available time to contribute as much as I would have liked. Other commitments outside of university have made a considerable burden on my time this semester. My online engagement I believe, having gained 2 stars, reflects a solid contribution to the online community of this unit.

Formation of Prejudice - Fundamental Errors in Thinking

Hey Everyone,

So I have been researching more on my Blog 2 topic (ecofeminism), and have come accross some particularly interesting contributions that this topic can make towards prejudice formation. First, stop and ask yourself, have you ever wondered why something is 'better' than something else? For example why 'up' is better than 'down', or why 'big' is better than 'small' ? These are examples of values placed on dualistic opposites and the creation of an 'order' or hierarchy.

So this thinking (known as value dualisms and hierarchical thinking) is the process we go through when we make judgements on things and people in the world around us. When applied to prejudice formation, this tendency to see the world in 'us' and 'them' categories implies the presence of a 'value' which is applied to each category. Values are then ordered in a hierachical fashion, and often we place ourselves as the benchmark for what is at the 'top' and best practice. By benchmarking all our judgements in relation to where we sit in this set hierarchy, we automatically create inequality in our formation of attitudes and fundamental beliefs.

Essentially by making this funamental error in our thinking, we often unknowingly set ourselves up for the formation of prejudice. Perhaps next time you assume something is 'better' than something else, you should stop and ask yourself how you arrived at this conclusion!

Food for thought!

The Canadian North-West Shipping Passage and Ecofeminism

Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to share some further thoughts on Ecofeminism, and in particular the application of the principles discussed in my last post. Last night on the ABC, Foreign Correspondant showed a segment on the Canadian North-West Shipping Passage through the Artic, and the implications global warming and environmental degradation is having on the area. It appears that in the last 5 years the ice in the North of Canada has slowly been melting due to global warming. The has opened up the previously unaccessible North-West shipping route through the Canadian Archipeligo. As a result there is now a dispute over who owns the area and who should have access to this potentially lucrative shipping route, (lucrative because of the money to be made in cutting shipping times in half between the North Atlantic and the North Pacific regions).

What struck me most about the interviews conducted in the show was the language used to describe arguements for and against such use of Artic lands and waters. Both the US ambassador to Canada, and George Bush, talked about such land in the Artic and the environment as now being of 'value', because it could potentially be made 'productive' due to the significant monetary gains to be made by this country. Whereas the environmental activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier spoke of the land in terms of the 'relationship' she had with the land, including the social and environmental impact such 'claiming' of the artic would have on the indigenous people in the area, the Inuit.

It is clear by the language used by both sides that the principles of ecofeminism are being played out in opposition. Clearly the US government sees land and nature as something that is only of import and value when it becomes potentially 'profitable' and 'productive' in support of their ultimate aim of monetary gain. On the other hand, environmental activists clearly see the land in a mutally supporting 'relationship' with themselves The local Inuits see their environment as something that they must live in harmony with, not dominate and oppress.

This is one such current application of ecofeminist principles and theory, one which obviously has become more salient with the progression of global warming and environmental degradation. The cost of 'control' over the land may be the complete destruction of it, and subsequently the downfall of humans. As one ecofeminist pointed out; 'nature can survive without humans, but humans cannot survive without nature'!

Thats all for now!

Ecofeminism and the Sacred

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to begin to tell everyone about my Blog 2 topic Ecofeminism. In my final blog I am going to look strictly at the conceptual framework behind ecofeminism and its implications for socio-psychological variables. However there is another equally important side to ecofeminism which is rooted in our religious backgrounds and traditions.

Firstly I want to give a brief definition of ecofeminsim for all those who don't know what it is. 'Ecofeminism is the position that there are important connections - historical, symbolic, theoretical - between the domination of women and the domination of non-human nature' (Warren, 1990; p125). Basically, ecofeminists argue that through a conceptual framework of hierarchical thinking, value dualisms and the logic of domination, western patriarchal culture has created a logic of oppression which rationalises prejudice and domination over women and nature.

This has implications not only in non-secular but also secular western thought and traditions. Hierarchical thinking creates an 'order' in which one group or thing is higher than the other; an order that makes the higher group 'better' than the lower group. Value dualisms feed off this by assuming that in a pairing, one is better than another. For example 'light' is better than 'dark' . This thinking has been used in both 'christian and jewish religious traditions', 'european mechanistic science and enlightenment philosophy', as well as feeding into the 'desacralization of the earth in favour of a sky-god' (Adams, 1993;p2). These Western thought and traditions, have systematically utilised such thinking in order to 'dominate' the previously existing 'earth religions' and pagan cultures who ultimately have no dualistic concept of 'good' and 'evil'. Futhermore this dualistic thinking leads to sky being sacred and earth being desacrilized, leading to 'domination of the natural world, fear of the body, projection of evil upon women, and world- destroying spiritual views' (Adams, 1993;p2).

Interesting food for thought, in light of the problems presenting the world in changing attitudes and behaviours towards environmental degradation and the looming threat of climate change.

Thats all for now!

References

Adams, C.J. (Ed.). 1993. Ecofeminism and the Sacred. Continuum, New York.

Warren, K.J. 1990. The power and promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12, 125-146.