Ecofeminism Movement Issues - Essay Example

? Ecofeminism Ecofeminism From the Chipko movement case, which was a case involving the practice of North Indian villagers, especially the women, who pushed the government into revising logging policies. The locality of the movement was the vast central plain lands – to the Himalayan peaks – stretching into the Nepal and Tibet regions. From the case, eco-feminism is displayed from the protests of the women who pushed the government into reconsidering their lagging policies. Ecofeminism, generally, uses similarities between the oppression of women and that of the natural world in analyzing ecological issues. Ecofeminism advocates for a fundamental shift, from the constructions of the dominant groupings within the society, in the regard of how they think and interpret the relationship between the natural world and humans. It seeks to establish the specific roots of the destruction of the ecology and the environment. It explains the control over the environment as based on the general patterns of control and domination. As a result, the perspective views that significant progress cannot be realized in protecting the environment, unless the patterns of domination are eradicated (Warren, 1990, p. 40). The philosophical challenges facing ecofeminism include, identifying an exactitude manner of establishing the interrelations amongst human groups as well as that between humans and the natural world. There is also the problem of establishing whether one has led to the other; whether they are independent relationships with little or no connection with one another, whether they are reciprocally strengthening, and whether one of the two should be accorded more ethical priority. There is also the issue of establishing – what the philosophical and ethical strategies are best, for use to resist dominations of women, which is compared to that of the environment, by the powerful within the society. An example here is the Indian government, which was challenged by the North Indian villagers. Other areas of dispute include, establishing whether ecofeminism is a division of social ecology and what the interrelations between the domination of women and that of other dominion constructions are (Warren, 1990, p. 40). Ecofeminism also resists greatly, the attempts to create a universal environmental philosophy – as many of the related problems are assigned abstract, universal answers – which form part of the problem in question. Further, this perspective is in its early stages of development, thus, the theorists urge that the approach to environmental problems get their basis on new ways of thinking. Lastly, it points to the significance of the dualism of connections, for example male/female, mind/body, reason/emotion and objectivity/subjectivity in shaping an understanding of the world. This kind of understanding will be significant in establishing a less destructive interrelation between the natural world and humans (Warren, 1997, p. 47). An identifiable strength of this theory is that it calls for open-mindedness in adopting new ways of thinking – when addressing the matters surrounding the domination of women and the natural world. Also, the strength is that it gives significance to the dynamics of the natural world, which cannot be applied to the dynamic nature of the world – as it reduces it into an abstractive form. The model also places importance on the adoption of new models of thinking among both women and men – as a way of arriving at constructive meanings. However, the theory does not succinctly create a linkage between the oppression of women and that with the natural world. Here it would address the aspects of – one being the cause of the other, and an account of the domination to be accorded more ethical priority. From the account of the author, the model is capable of portraying the natural world in its dynamic manner – through its provision on the need to adjust to the dynamic nature of humans, the natural world, and the linkages thereof (Warren, 1997, p. 23). This model is considerably logical in its arguments, bearing in mind that it gives reference to the subject of feminism and environment protection – as it places focus on the aspects of tracing the root causes of the problems surrounding environmental domination. This model is more logical to the subject – as compared to other models like the mechanistic theory, which does not pay attention to the dynamic nature of life. The mechanistic perspective assumes a highly mathematical model, which calls for calculated relationships between the oppression of the natural world, which may not be realistic in offering answers to real life problems. This model is also of great significance in eradicating the issues under its coverage, including others incorporated into it later after its usage. These include sexism, under which the potential of women has been questioned, which should not be the case. Other issues addressed under the model include the domination of certain groups, these including marginalized races, and classes. Therefore, it is a model which is not only of significance in addressing the issues of environmental and feminine domination (Warren, 1990, p. 40). (b). The Carolyn Merchant case, as expressed in her book, “the death of nature: women, Ecology and scientific revolution,” nature is a benevolent female-like entity and a mother, who nurtures her children – who are the benefactors of the natural world. However, after the scientific revolution, the perspective changed, where nature was seen as a mechanistic and malleable machine – thus could be exploited uncontrolled industrial expansion and changing socio-economic forms, which perpetuate the subordination of females within the society. Through the case, ecofeminism and feminist theory represents the potential of women is causing ecological revolution to ensure human existence on the planet. The mechanistic perspective views nature as divisible, into parts, and that these divisions can be combined to create other beings. These combinations are effected in a mathematical manner, and are tested against the universality nature. This approach creates the principle for certainty and rationality – thus the acceptance or the rejection of a theory. The mathematical applicability of theories is what gives it credibility. The theory is applicable to physics, for instance the Newtonian theory; mechanics, and electromagnetic. However, this model is highly likely, of excluding some potentially relevant facts or factors. It aims at establishing the ways, in which the parts of a system affect the whole, which is the way the part gets its meaning from the whole. However, the more adaptive, open and complex a system is, the less successful it becomes to this formalism. The model works best, in the case of closed, artificial and precisely defined structures. The use of mechanistic assumptions about nature push the belief of nature towards artificial environments, mechanized manipulation of human aspects and the loss of the quality of life (Warren, 1997, p. 12). Firstly, it is important to note that the potential of women in addressing the problems facing other women as well as environmental domination is of great significance. The potential of women in addressing the problems related to their identity as women, as those the exploitation of nature – is clearly expressed through the Chipko experience, where they played a greater role, as compared to the men who could be manipulated by the then government (Warren, 1997, p. 25). Further, the potential of women in addressing the problems facing the natural world – may be traced to the case that they are the ones affected by the depletion of the natural world severely. This is, especially the case, considering that the domination and the destruction of the natural world affects women more, especially those residing at rural areas. This is the case, as in many cases, men will move to cities in search of employment, while the women rely on the provision of the natural world – which is what was happening several years ago, in many parts of the world. The potential of women can be traced to the example of the Chipko movement, where the women of the region were able to force the government into changing its logging policies. However, the mechanistic perspective is considerably illogical – considering the fact that it seeks to mechanize human life aspects. This is the case, considering the fact that the dynamics of life do not allow for the mechanization of life. For instance, the domination of women and the natural world vary greatly from one case to another – these including the variations of culture, values, morals and the ideals adopted by a society (Warren, 1997, p. 24). The mechanistic perspective has its weaknesses in pushing domination into the reality of a mechanistic environment, which may not be possible with natural aspects and their variations. This is, especially the case, as many aspects of the natural world do not fit into the exactitude, certainty aspects proposed by the model. The logical implications that can be drawn from the theory include that it can only be used in mathematically compliable aspects within the natural world, and not the dynamics of social life like female or natural world domination. Some of the aspects that may be applied under this perspective include physics and electromagnetic, which are scientific models. This is the case, as these are not subject to day to day or case to case variations. For example, the case of female domination may take the form of domestic violence. In its rightful application, the violence of one family may be similar but totally different to that facing another household (Warren, 1990, p. 43). From the power and the promise of ecological feminism grows from the actual and the theorized linkage between the domination of women and that of nature. It links the relational attitudes of humans towards others as well as the non-human nature – to coin the responsibilities of humans to the non-human environment. It does this, through the consideration of the voices of women and other oppressed groups, towards the structuring of the ethic. As per its arguments, the subordination of women is based on the logic of domination – which is grounded in perceived superiority of men. The oppression of nature, also, is grounded on the superiority of man to nature. Because of this similarity of logic for oppression, women are obligated to choosing a common cause with nature. The ethic insists on feeling the pain of nature, which is grounded on the power of the environmental connectivity and mutual responsibility. The ethic is also grounded upon relational attitudes like loving expressions, care, reciprocity and doing what is appropriate for a given situation. From this perspective, the domination of women and that of nature can be viewed from a totally different perspective (Warren, 1990, p. 53). This perspective serves its role, in explaining the reality of the oppression of the natural world and women. However, the model fails to establish the link between the oppression of women and that faced by the other aspects of nature – these including animals and plant life. The logic of domination – as explained by the theory – is logical, as it traces the vice of female subordination to the culturally socialized superiority of men. Among the people living in highly stratified societies, this is true, where gender roles are fully constructed and established. For example, the Indian society named in the Chipko movement case, bestowed the duties of housework and subsistence to the women. On the other hand, men spent their time looking for jobs or attending meetings away from the locality. The logical implications of this model include that there is an immense value placed on the relationships within the society – where care, love and concern should be extended to the marginalized groups within the society. The assumption of the model include that, the women within the society are at the mercy of the consideration of men, which may not be the case in many instances. The theory also make the assumption that the welfare of the natural world is at the mercy of the humans – to protect it or misuse it. This may be true, mainly because the role of the residents may be very important in protecting the natural world. A good and reliable example here is that of the Indian women explained in the Chipko movement case, who were able to compel the government to change logging policies. The advantages of the model include the importance it offers to the role of human relations, which form a core aspect of any society. The disadvantages of the model include the fact that the linkage between the domination of women and that of the natural world is not established. Also, the examples used in supporting the model do not offer strong conviction in the reader. An example is the case of planting Eucalyptus trees in India, which the theorists – stated as having affected the lifestyles of women, making it difficult for them to find food (Warren, 1997, p. 25). This perspective is not fully justifiable, due to its inability to establish the relationships between the main issues of discussion, these including the domination of women and that of the natural world. The mode is also, not admissible, as it does not offer solid evidence and justification for the arguments expressed by the model. The model is also not well established, as it uses cases that are not fully realistic to support its course. These include the case of hunting a deer, where the theorist argues that the hunter should take time to feel the pain of the deer, a case which is fully impractical. As opposed to what the case should be, delaying the death of the animal will only serve to extend its suffering, which is not rational according to any model arguing for the protection of the rights of the natural world, these including wild animals (Warren, 1990, p. 130). (d). A critique of ecofeminism argues that Warren’s ecofeminism is a proper response to both naturism and sexism, where the direct correlation between the domination of the natural world and that of women are related. For instance, women, especially during the industrial revolution relied upon the natural world for the provision of firewood, food, and sustenance in general. Despite the fact that the critics argue that the model is vague and extremely loose – thus, there exists a relationship between the two areas of domination. Further, critics argue that the definition of feminist issues, as “anything that contributes in some way, to the understanding of the oppression of women,” is absolutely wide-open. However, citing the reliance of women, especially during the years during and after the industrial revolution, it is evident that the definition is highly potent – in explaining the different forms of oppression, and an area that deserves further exploration (Warren, 1997, p. 140). The arguments contained in the critique of ecofeminism are fully admissible, as they clearly distinguish the weaknesses of the model under criticism. These weaknesses include the inability to show the linkage between the domination of women and that of the natural world. The impractical nature of the cases used to justify the perspective is also an indication of its weak nature. The logical implications made clear through the critique include the fact that the perspective was not fully argued out, which is evident from the illogical nature of the examples used to support the model. Also, the inability to justify the linkage between the domination of women and that of the natural world is implied. The disadvantage of the model include that the model is more theoretical than logical, mainly due to the inability of the theorist in relating the evidence to the arguments under discussion (Warren, 1990, p. 12). From the exposure of the weak points of the perspective, the critique is a fully argued debate, which can be supported and adopted in making changes to the model, so that it can offer more support for the arguments. The critique may be used by the theorists to develop their argument – which will directly have served as a contributor towards the development of the ecofeminism model of explaining the domination of women. Further, the case of deer hunting can be used to show that the model argues against the course of ecofeminism. This is mainly because delaying the suffering of the hunted deer fully serves against the course of protecting the natural world (Warren, 1990, p. 127). References Warren, K. (1990). The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12 (2), 125-146. Warren, K. (1997). Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature. West Lafayette, IN: Indiana University Press. The Land Ethic Name: Institution: The Land Ethic Introduction The land ethic is an extension in the coverage of the community – to include water, soils, animals and plants – which can all be classified as the land. Aldo Leopold insists on new relationships to be established between nature and humans – which will define a new set of conservation standards. Leopold bases his arguments on the role of ethics in perpetuating the mutual benefit of all – by including the welfare of non-human elements. The consideration of land as a part of the community should be based on the concept of ecology – with an ethical extension that; love and respect need to be offered to the land. According to him, the people play a critical role in preserving and protecting the extension of the community. This draws to the ecological conscience, which impels conviction of personal responsibility for the welfare of the land. Central to the theoretical model, is the decent use of the land – not as an economic strategy, but also the wellbeing of the environment, therefore the need for a close personal association to the land. Therefore, the people need to establish love, feeling, understanding, and faith in the land and its welfare (Leopold, 1960, p. 213-219). Discussion Leopold’s holistic model explores the balance of the entire community in arguing for the welfare of the environment. The criticisms of the model include that it puts the interests of the natural phenomena, above that of the humans, who are the patrons of the natural world, which earns them the right to benefit from the natural world. The conceptual foundation of the land ethic declares that the role of man should change from that of – “a conqueror of the land-community,” to make him a universal member of the entire community, who offers respects to the other parts of the land-community. It holds that humans should engage, only, in those things that promote the integrity, beauty, and the stability of the entire land-community. Therefore, the view holds that men are wrong, when they act otherwise. The preservation of species insists on a change in the view offered to human-generated change to the natural world, where more attention is offered to the value of biological diversity and natural resources in a more general manner. In the constancy of Leopold’s land ethic, economic biology is just a system of exhausting the environment, thus he holds that a long-sighted anthropocentric perspective will be the only basis for the conservation of the natural world. Thinking like a mountain emphasizes on the central thinking of individuals as parts of the ecosystem. This means that individuals should develop a complete realization of the interconnectedness of all the parts within the ecosystem – through the usage of intricate web – of mutual need for each other in the natural environment, rather than thinking as a self-standing entity. This paper is an explicit account of the values of the land ethic model, offering third perspectives to the model and showing support for the more rational perspectives underlying the model (Leopold, 1960, p. 220-226). Analysis and hidden assumptions: From the discussion on the land ethic, there is the economic land ethic, which centers on the economic value drawn from the land; the utilitarian based land ethic, which holds that the action that present the utmost good for people is right; the libertarian land ethic, which bases on the freedoms of entities, as long as they do not interfere on that of others; and the egalitarian land ethic, which centers on the even distribution of the benefits from the land. From a cross-perspective of the different models, it is evident that the people are the central beneficiaries of the ecosystem. Leopold’s land ethic goes further to propagate the need and the essence of considering the other parts of the natural world, these including water, soil, animals and plants. According to this ethic, what is right is what promotes the good of all these parts of the land. From this ethic, it is evident that there is a hidden assumption that the role of human beings in nurturing these other parts of the land is given central cause. However, there is an implied assumption on the area of its limitation, including that there is no definition of the limit to which the humans can benefit from the care offered to these other parts of the land. From an analytical perspective, it is also evident that the ethic views the land as a web of interconnections of independent parts, all drawing value from one another (Callicott, 1989, p. 75-91). There is also an assumption that humans are not the rulers, but members of the wide land community, where their role in preserving the other parts of the environment is of central importance. From Leopold’s point of view, each part of the natural world draws its intrinsic value from the entire interconnected nature of all the parts within the natural world. Through this model, there is a hidden assumption that the polarized relationships within the universe do not mean anything towards the perceived natural world. For example, according to the model, the wolf is a friend of the deer-species, when indeed – the wolf will hunt the deer for food. This assumption shows that the model is not fully accommodative of the dynamics of the natural world. There is also a chief assumption that, humans are the main actors in preserving the stability, integrity and the beauty of the natural world. However, the other parts of the natural world are not given attention – in terms of the role they play in preserving the natural balance. From the contribution of humans towards the entire balance, it is also conclusive, that they will express the need to draw from the contribution, a case which is not highlighted in the model. For instance, a farmer will take care of the soil and plants, so that they can get harvest. According to the model, the execution of these natural species from the benefit of humans is wrong. However, it is right on the basis of the economic land ethic. Therefore, it is evident that the balance between the contribution and the benefit to be drawn is not explained (Leopold, 1960, p. 201-211). Logical implications drawn from the land ethic model include – that ethics is the ecological limitation of the extent to which the struggle for existence is perpetuated. This implies that the land ethic seeks to create a balance, where certain parts of the natural world pursue their wellbeing by threatening the welfare of the others, within the interrelation existing between the environments. For example, the pursuit of the wolves in hunting down the deer-species for food is a struggle for existence, which sustains the wolves and threatens the welfare of the deer-species. According to the model, the ethic seeks to reduce such relationships, which is really a question of creation – thus a close to impossible pursuit to pursue. There is the logical implication that both humans and the other parts of the natural world: water, animals and plants are equal in terms of their need to exist within the natural world. However, this model presents the difficulty that it stands in the way of the value drawn from these natural resources, which serve to help in protecting the natural balance. In simple terms, the land ethic serves to stop the alteration, use and management of these natural resources – propagating their right to continued existence, especially in their natural state. However, this logic can be questioned, with regard to the extent to which the different parts of the natural world can be used or exploited for the benefit of both the other parts of the universe and the human species. An example here is the balance, to exist between herbivorous animals and plants, as these animals exhaust the plant species for their welfare. Also, it gives the implication that humans are the only parts who benefit from the other parts of the natural world – disregarding the set of benefits drawn among the different parts of the natural world. For example: the relationship between carnivores and other animals, as well as between herbivores and plant life (Leopold, 1960, p. 220-226). The advantage of the land ethic is that it bestows value and need for consideration on all the aspects of the natural world. This is evident from the phrase, “the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for …the fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such (Leopold, 1960, p. 194).” This is in line with any environment protection theory, as the accordance of value and preservation of these species will be a source of value in the present and in the future. The value drawn from the activism of this model includes the income gained from tourism, which forms a substantial proportion of GDP for many nations. The model also shifts attention from preserving these natural forms for their inherent value, but for the role that they play, as parts of the natural world. The model, further, offers a directive into the way the human groups and the rest of nature should relate, from the shift of seeing nature as a part of the entire whole, and not an exhaustible resource. The inherent value provided here, is that, the future of the humans is secured from the change of their views. For instance, from exhausting plant life which absorbs carbon dioxide, human contributes to global warming, which is a threat to global inhabitation. The main disadvantage of the land ethic it leads to polarization of the perspective assumed in examining human nature and actions. This is the case, as the model creates a negative perspective to what are logical patterns of income creation and economic centers. These include the benefit that should be drawn from land resources, the extent to which the land and the resources available should be altered, and the relationship that should exist between humans and the other natural species within the natural world. From the same facts existing within the natural world, some will derive different notions rendering the livelihood models of others as unethical and illogical towards the welfare of the general ecosystem. The priority given to the needs of the natural parts of nature as opposed to giving priority to the needs of humans is a disadvantage of the model. This is the case, mainly because; humans play a critical role in environmental conservation, thus the reliance of the natural world on them (Callicott, 1989, p. 75-91. In addition to the relatively impossible equality theorized about the members of the community, Leopold’s land ethics model is more theoretical than realistic as compared to other land ethic models. This is the case, mainly because the model delineates the model from the needs of humans and the inherent pursuit to survive in the natural world. For instance, the model would argue that the place to be taken by human residential areas would be, better covered by natural phenomena like rocks or forests. This can be argued to be the case, from comparing the model with other land ethics like the economic land ethic, which holds that the value of the natural world is the benefit it offers to humans. The model, also, offers consideration to supporting systems – which, according to Leopold, would be eliminated for their lack of value. Secondly, Leopold criticizes the model as one that leaves the role of preserving the environment to the government, which is largely not true. Therefore the model is considerably shifted away from the reality of the interdependence in the natural world. This is also evident in the argument that natural enemies like foxes and deer-species have a role to one another, when there is no possible mutuality between them (Callicott, 1989, p. 75-91). From a critical evaluation of the arguments and the value described through the land ethic, it is clear that ideas from different perspectives are incorporated, including natural science, literature, ethics, aesthetics, economics and public policy. Through the model, the theorist gives attention to the readers’ perspective, inviting other views into the conversation and denotes communities as participants in the broad natural world. From this perspective, the theorist leaves the model to be embraced by new actors in the future, through which it can be developed further. They also imply that the theory is flexible to changes in scientific insights and shifts in founding principles, and that it gives attention to the connections existing within the natural world. The ethic, further, seeks the protection of the different natural forms, including the water-borne and the wider realm of economic conservation in a meaningful manner. Based on the strengths of this model, it is clear that it is a model which can be developed and used to address the environmental and animal protection theories, which often are conflicting subjects. From the wide coverage of the model, it is clear that it deserves attention and focus towards realizing the preservation of the natural world (Leopold, 1960, p. 220). Conclusion The land ethic is the enlargement of the community to cover other natural phenomena like water, soil, plants and animals, as parts of the natural world – together with human groups. The argument is that these phenomena should be preserved and maintained for the common good of the entire natural system. Emphasis is given, that man is a part of this world, and not the conqueror of these resources. The logical implication to be drawn from the model includes the disregard of the natural enmities existing between different species, for example that between wolves and the deer-species. The advantage s of the model include that it presents the value of the natural world, which is evident from the value drawn from it in its natural forms. An example here is natural phenomena tourism. However, the model is more theoretical than realistic, because it delineates the natural needs and existence systems within the natural world. Also, the model is worth, of being developed, as it approaches the problem of natural preservation from a multi-perspective approach – incorporating disciplines like ethics, aesthetics, policy and history in exploring environmental protectionism. References Callicott, B. (1989). In defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Leopold, A. (1960). A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More