Feminist Formations, Volume 23, Issue 2, Summer 2011, pp. 26-53 (Article)
Formulated in the 1980s and gaining prominence in the early 1990s, by the end
of that decade ecofeminism was critiqued as essentialist and effectively discarded.
Fearing their scholarship would be contaminated by association with the term “eco-
feminism,” feminists working on the intersections of feminism and environmentalism
thought it better to rename their approach. Thirty years later, current developments
in allegedly new fields such as animal studies and naturalized epistemology are
“discovering” theoretical perspectives on interspecies relations and standpoint theory
that were developed by feminists and ecofeminists decades ago. What have we lost
by jettisoning these earlier feminist and ecofeminist bodies of knowledge? Are there
features of ecofeminism that can helpfully be retrieved, restoring an intellectual and
activist history, and enriching current theorizing and activisms? By examining the
historical foundations of ecofeminism from the 1980s onward, this article uncovers
the roots of the antifeminist backlash against ecofeminism in the 1990s, peeling back
the layers of feminist and environmentalist resistance to ecofeminism’s analyses of
the connections among racism, sexism, classism, colonialism, speciesism, and the
environment. Recuperating ecofeminist insights of the past thirty years provides
feminist foundations for current liberatory theories and activisms.
And then he proceeded to tell me what was really exciting in feminism: Work
most recently produced by scholars who had previously produced ecofeminist
theory.1
What happened to ecofeminism? While various scholars outside the field
have written retrospectives on its demise (Seager 2003a) and necessary recu-
peration (Thompson 2006), few present or former ecofeminists have taken the
risk of chronicling the history of our field, its internal and external battles, and
its startlingly widespread influence on the humanities and social sciences—art,
philosophy, psychology, education, animal studies, cultural studies, postcolonial
studies, environmental studies, ecocriticism, queer theory, and feminist–gender
studies, to name a few. The fear of contamination-by-association is just too
strong. After the charges of gender essentialism—accurately leveled at cultural
feminism, a branch of thought in both feminist and ecofeminist theory—most
feminists working on the intersections of feminism and the environment
thought it better to rename their approach to distinguish it from essentialist
feminisms and thereby gain a wider audience; hence, the proliferation of terms
such as “ecological feminism” (Warren 1991, 1994), “feminist environmentalism”
(Agarwal 1992; Seager 1993), “social ecofeminism” (Heller 1999; King 1989),
“critical feminist eco-socialism” (Plumwood 2002), or simply “gender and the
environment.” Curiously, current critical developments in allegedly new fields
such as animal studies and naturalized epistemology are now “discovering”
theoretical perspectives on interspecies relations and standpoint theory that
were developed by feminists and ecofeminists decades ago, yet unlike those eco-
feminists who theorize about speciesism (a branch variously called “vegetarian
ecofeminism” or “animal ecofeminism”), few of these animal studies scholars
address interspecies or gender justice.
As a community of radical scholars and eco-justice activists, what have we
lost by jettisoning these earlier feminist and ecofeminist bodies of knowledge?
Are there features of ecofeminism that can helpfully be retrieved, restoring an
intellectual and activist history and enriching current theorizing and activisms?
By examining the historical foundations of North American ecofeminism from
the 1980s onward, this article aims at uncovering the roots of the antifeminist
backlash against ecofeminism in the 1990s, peeling back the layers of feminist
and environmentalist resistance to ecofeminism’s analyses of the connections
among racism, sexism, classism, colonialism, speciesism, and the environment.
Recuperating ecofeminist insights of the past thirty years provides feminist
foundations for current liberatory theories and activisms—indeed, I will argue,
such recuperation may be (dare I say it?) essential.
Carson’s applied feminism in her personal, professional, and literary life goes
almost unmentioned, overshadowed by the more visible and self-identified
feminists of the 1960s, whose activism within and across the diverse counter-
cultural movements of the 1960s and ’70s also powered the anti-war and anti-
nuclear movements. Ecofeminism emerged from the intersections of feminist
research and the various movements for social justice and environmental health,
explorations that uncovered the linked oppressions of gender, ecology, race,
species, and nation through such foundational texts as Susan Griffin’s Woman
and Nature (1978) and Carolyn Merchant’s The Death of Nature (1980). An
early text of radical feminism, Mary Daly’s Gyn/Ecology (1978), exposed the
historical and cross-cultural persecution of women as legitimized by the various
male-dominated institutions of religion, culture, and medical science (that is,
Indian suttee, Chinese footbinding, African genital mutilation, European witch-
burnings, American gynecology, Nazi medicine), linking the physical health
of women and the environment with the recuperation of a woman-centered
language and thought.
Griffin’s Woman and Nature predates today’s gender studies in its explo-
ration of the ways that the feminized status of women, animals, nature, and
feminized others (children, people of color, farmers, slaves, as well as the body
itself, emotions, and sexuality) have been conceived of as separate and inferior
in order to legitimate their subordination under an elite and often violent and
militarized male-dominant social order. Bridging socialist feminism and ecol-
ogy, Merchant’s The Death of Nature provided historical documentation for the
claim that the domination of women and of nature have shared roots in the
logic of science and capitalism, an intertwining of economics and rationalism
that Merchant traces from 1484 to 1716. Most provocative is her intersectional
linkage of racism, speciesism, sexism, colonialism, capitalism, and the mecha-
nistic model of science–nature via the historical co-occurrence of the racist
and colonialist “voyages of discovery” that resulted in appropriating indigenous
peoples, animals, and land; the three centuries of European witch-burnings
eradicating women herbalists and midwives, along with their “animal familiars”
and various gay men (“fags” used for the kindling of the witches’ burnings); along
with animal experimentation, the demise of midwifery, and the rise of Western
medical science—all functioning as illicit appropriations of self-determination,
power, and wealth from indigenous people, women, queers, animals, and nature
to elite men. Going beyond the findings of Griffin and Daly, Merchant’s docu-
mented historical research provided a materialist feminist foundation for the
activism and theorizing of ecofeminism in the 1980s and beyond. Outside of
the United States, materialist foundations were also laid down by early German
and Australian ecofeminists like Maria Mies (1986) and Ariel Salleh (1984).
Feminist activism in the 1980s offered an ecological and feminist perspec-
tive that linked militarism, corporatism, and unsustainable energy production
by joining together the antinuclear protests and the peace movement. At
Greta Gaard · 29
race and toxic waste (Lin Nelson, Cynthia Hamilton), childbirth, midwifery,
and colonialism (Arisika Razak, Irene Diamond), the colonial and patriarchal
“development” of non-Western countries (Vandana Shiva), the role of religion
in shaping human relationships with nature (Charlene Spretnak, Riane Eisler,
Carol Christ, Starhawk), and critiques of feminist theory’s anthropocentrism
(Carolyn Merchant, Ynestra King, Lee Quinby), as well as the male-dominated
Western environmentalisms, deep ecology (Marti Kheel, Michael Zimmer-
man) and bioregionalism (Judith Plant). In Vancouver, Judith Plant’s more
community-focused and bioregional version of ecofeminism appeared in Healing
the Wounds (1989), confirming the leading voices and foci of ecofeminism in
Griffin’s (1978) analysis of Western (“split”) culture, King’s (1989) social eco-
feminism, Vandana Shiva’s (1988) critique of colonialist development in the
third world, and Marti Kheel’s (1989) critique of speciesism and Western medical
science, along with Charlene Spretnak’s (1982), Starhawk’s (1979, 1982), and
Rosemary Radford Ruether’s (1983, 1996) versions of earth-based spirituality. In
these three international anthologies written for “cross-over” (popular, as well
as scholarly) audiences—Reclaim the Earth (Caldecott and Leland 1983), Healing
the Wounds (Plant 1989), and Reweaving the World (Diamond and Orenstein
1990)—ecofeminism in the 1980s took shape.3
Both within and alongside of these anthologies, critiques of racism,
speciesism, and colonialism claimed central importance. Marjorie Spiegel’s The
Dreaded Comparison (1988) drew clear parallels between the enslavement of
nonhuman animals and African Americans in the United States, while Andreé
Collard and Joyce Contrucci’s Rape of the Wild (1989) explored the masculinized
violence directed at women, people of color, animals, and the natural world
through structures of domesticity, enslavement, hunting, militarism, science
and technology—all legitimated and normalized through religion, culture, and
language. Growing out of the Women’s Pentagon Actions and organized by
ecofeminist activist-scholars King, Starhawk, and Rachel Bagby, the Woman
Earth Feminist Peace Institute took shape in 1985, and in its four-year course
focused on creating racial parity among ecofeminist activists while simultane-
ously addressing racism within feminist and environmental movements (Stur-
geon 1997). Shiva’s Staying Alive (1988) critiqued the reductionist and colonial
aspects of Western science and technology used to create food insufficiency and
deforestation, damming the rivers, producing monocultures, displacing women
from food production and forestry, and working against ecosystems and soils to
extract wealth for corporations and first world elites, while producing scarcity
and poverty for local communities.
At the same time in the 1980s, other forerunners of the feminist movement
for human and environmental health took action and created theory that later
influenced ecofeminist thought. Lois Gibbs’s work as a mother defending her
children and organizing her community at Love Canal in 1978 led to the cre-
ation of both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund Act and
Greta Gaard · 31
Gibbs’s own Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste, formed in 1980 and
later renamed the Center for Health, Environment, and Justice (Gibbs 1995).
Activists who exposed the logic that led to building a working-class community
atop Hooker Chemical’s hazardous-waste dump initially identified themselves as
the antitoxics movement, but a decade later defined their work as a resistance
to “environmental classism”—a counterpart to the “environmental racism” that
activists in Warren County, North Carolina, resisted in 1982 by challenging the
siting of a toxic-waste dump in an impoverished African American community.
Indigenous women called attention to the colonialism and environmental
racism that legitimates hazardous waste, military bomb tests, coal mining,
nuclear storage, hydropower construction, and PCB contamination on reser-
vation lands (LaDuke 1999). Feminist actions in the breast cancer movement
linked breast cancers with environmental toxins like endocrine disruptors emit-
ted by the same chemical corporations that funded the “pink ribbon” walks for
breast cancer research (Clorfene-Casten 1996; Greene and Ratner 1994), made
connections between environmental estrogens and prostate cancers (Colborn,
Dumanoski, and Myers 1996), and thereby unmasked (once again) the linkages
between the gendered culture–nature dualism, capitalist economic structures,
and medical science and technology. Although not explicitly ecofeminist,
these activisms and theories strongly influenced the further development and
sophistication of ecofeminist theory in the 1990s.
Thus reviewed, the history of ecofeminism seems very promising. Many
believed ecofeminism would become feminism’s “third wave,” building on and
transforming the anthropocentric critiques of first- and second-wave feminisms
with an ecological perspective. But what happened was something entirely
different: Focusing on the celebration of goddess spirituality and the critique
of patriarchy advanced in cultural ecofeminism, poststructuralist and other
third-wave feminisms portrayed all ecofeminisms as an exclusively essentialist
equation of women with nature, discrediting ecofeminism’s diversity of argu-
ments and standpoints to such an extent that, by 2010, it was nearly impossible
to find a single essay, much less a section, devoted to issues of feminism and
ecology (and certainly not ecofeminism), species, or nature in most introductory
anthologies used in women’s studies, gender studies, or queer studies.4 As Charis
Thompson (2006) reflects, “poststructuralist feminisms somehow lost sight of
the structuralist insight of ecofeminism that yoked together world patterns of
environmental degradation with women’s oppression” (511).
Merchant’s (1995) materialist account of the woman–nature connection—
like those of Ynestra King (1989), Karen Warren (1991, 1994), Val Plumwood
(1991, 1993), Ariel Salleh (1984, 1997), Lori Gruen (1993), and many other
ecofeminist scholar-activists—described a socially constructed association
among women (sex), femininity (gender), and nature that was contextual and
fluid, not ahistorical and static (Thompson 2006). In the 1990s, this feminist
analysis shifted from exploring associations among the objects of oppression
32 · Feminist Formations 23.2
In fact, they have not. The charges against ecofeminists as essentialist, eth-
nocentric, anti-intellectual goddess-worshippers who mistakenly portray the
Earth as female or issue totalizing and ahistorical mandates for worldwide
veganism—these sweeping generalizations, often made without specific and
supporting documentation, have been disproven again and again in the pages
of academic and popular journals, at conferences and in conversations, yet the
contamination lingers. Ecofeminism in the 1980s was indeed a broad umbrella
for a variety of diversely inflected approaches, some of which were rooted in
essentialist (cultural) feminisms, just as others grew out of liberal, social, Marx-
ist, anarchist, and socialist feminisms (Gaard 1993b, 1998; Merchant 1995;
Sturgeon 1997), and in the 1990s, ecofeminist theories continued to refine
and ground their analyses, developing economic, material, international, and
intersectional perspectives. Misrepresenting the part for the whole is a logical
fallacy, a straw-woman argument that holds up an “outlier” position and uses it
to discredit an entire body of thought. Why would mainstream feminism resist
the findings of ecofeminism so strongly? What could be at stake?
Eighteen months after publishing Josephine Donovan’s “Animal Rights
and Feminist Theory” (1990), in June 1992, the leading journal of academic
feminism, Signs, rejected a review essay of ecofeminism its managing editors
had commissioned just a year earlier. The editors’ reasons for their decision
included the following: “ecofeminism seems to be concerned with everything
Greta Gaard · 33
in the world . . . [as a result] feminism itself seems almost to get erased in the
process” and “when [ecofeminism] contains all peoples and all injustices, the
fine tuning and differentiation lose out.” The review essay summarized the ways
ecofeminists had noted connections among the oppressions of nature, women,
and all those constructed as “feminine” by examining global economics, third
world debt, maldevelopment, industrialized animal food production and food
scarcity, reproductive rights, militarism, and environmental racism. To these
researched and documented observations, Signs editors replied that “this is
really an opinion piece [and] the ties to women are not very clear.” Reluctant
to believe that socialist feminists would so blithely reject a feminist approach
to environmental problems, the essay’s authors attributed these reactions to a
possible personality conflict and resubmitted the article to another feminist
journal—with the same results.
By November 1992, editors at NWSA Journal had rejected the essay as well,
commenting that “it is not at all clear that there is anything new brought out
by [the] paper”—an observation that, paradoxically, based the rejection on an
acknowledgment of ecofeminism’s roots in standard feminist analysis. But the
other reasons for the essay’s rejection were more inscrutable: In response to
pages of examples citing the placement of toxic waste in communities of color
around the world, NWSAJ’s editors remarked, “[i]t is a difficult argument to
make—what does concern with ecology have to do with concern with sexism,
racism, and classism?” In the early 1990s, despite feminist leadership in the
antitoxics and antinuclear movements and women’s leadership in the burgeon-
ing environmental justice movement, feminist scholars still conceived of social
justice, interspecies ethics, and environmental concerns as separate. Recogniz-
ing that mainstream socialist feminists would continue to silence articulations
of such intersections, the essay’s authors submitted the article to Society and
Nature, a journal of social ecology, where it was soon published (Gaard and
Gruen 1993), and was later reprinted in an anthology of environmental ethics
(Light and Rolston 2003).
The editorial perspectives of Signs and NWSA Journal were reinforced by
feminist publications like Ms. and The Women’s Review of Books. From 1990
to 1994, Ms. ran a section on ecofeminism, with articles that varied widely in
content, quality, and political perspective. There, diverse articles addressed
Green politics (Petra Kelly), genetic engineering (Vandana Shiva), Redwood
Summer (Judi Bari), hunting sabotage (Hope Burwell), the chocolate industry
(Cat Cox), ecofeminist motherhood (Ynestra King), feminist bioregionalism
(Hannah Holmes), the Army Corps of Engineers (Joni Seager), environmental
racism (Valerie Taliman), and feminism and animal rights (Carol Adams)—
clearly topics appropriate for ecofeminist inquiry. Other articles on trekking
across the South Pole, cattle ranching, and rodeo-riding were also published in
the “ecofeminism” column, though their connection to ecofeminism remained
unclear (and, for the latter two, quite suspect, given their speciesism). It appeared
34 · Feminist Formations 23.2
that Ms. editors believed that ecofeminism was significant enough to warrant a
section in the magazine (at least in the early half of the 1990s), but not impor-
tant enough for them to research ecofeminism’s primary claims and ensure that
the articles published under that heading accurately and consistently reflected
ecofeminist theory and practice. Although Ms. magazine offered a sixteen-page
“Special Report” on “Women and the Environment” (1991) and again reported
on the World Women’s Congress for a Healthy Planet (1992) in a section titled
“In Defense of the Earth—Global Testimony,” by 1994, the column heading of
“ecofeminism” had receded, and articles that would have well-suited an eco-
feminist heading, such as “Toxic Tampons” (1992), “The Environmental Link
to Breast Cancer” (1993), “Going Vegetarian” (1994), “A Beginner’s Guide to
Menopause” (1995), and “Whole Earth Economy” (1997), gradually migrated to
the columns on “Health.” What was initially perceived as a political feminist
theory grounded in experiential data, research, and activism became, in less
than four years, a matter of personal health, stripped of the feminist political
analysis made available through the term “ecofeminism.”
The Women’s Review of Books (WRB) fared little better. In October 1993,
in a dual review of two new collections on ecofeminism—Ecofeminism and the
Sacred (1993) and Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature (1993)—reviewer
Paula DiPerna revealed the limitations of her knowledge in such statements as
“I do not believe meat-eating to be an environmental threat on par with ozone
depletion” when industrialized animal food production has been decisively
linked to global warming, and her (by now familiar) charge that “ecofeminism
has grown so holistic . . . as to render itself meaningless” (5).5 In effect, this
statement suggested that for mainstream feminism, meaning was predicated on
exclusion—and unfortunately for ecofeminists, this interpretation turned out to
be true. Uninformed, paradoxical, and openly hostile reviews of Mies and Shiva’s
Ecofeminism (Blackwell 1994) and Adams’s Neither Man nor Beast (Stange
1995) articulated the WRB editors’ position, placing ecofeminism outside the
margins of mainstream feminism via the books’ positions on animal issues. On
the one hand, Mies and Shiva were criticized for showing “little appreciation of
wilderness for its own sake and complete indifference to the rights of animals
. . . say[ing] nothing about the industrial world’s macho meat-obsession and its
relation to world hunger, environmental destruction and the rise of hideously
cruel, automated ‘factory farms’ (which inflict their worst torments on female
animals and their babies)” (Blackwell 1994, 28). On the other hand, Adams’s
“premise that species is a social construction in exactly the same way that race
and gender are” was depicted as “highly debatable” (Stange 1995, 18)—and
although Adams’s premise predated posthumanist philosophy by more than a
decade, it never enjoyed the same popularity, since her work was charged with
“gender essentialism” (ibid.). For Adams’s reviewer, the WRB editors chose Mary
Zeiss Stange, a professor of religion and women’s studies at Skidmore College
who had written for Fur Age Weekly, Petersen’s Hunting, and American Hunter
Greta Gaard · 35
and was currently at work on her manuscript Woman the Hunter, which was
published in 1997 and celebrated as “a different view of ecofeminism” in The
Chronicle of Higher Education (Gose 1997).
At the same time that mainstream feminism was rejecting animal ecofemi-
nism, critiques of ecofeminism were being developed by feminist environmen-
talists and ecofeminists alike. Bina Agarwal’s (1992, 2001) critiques offered a
well-grounded corrective to the essentialism of the unitary category “woman.”
As Agarwal (1992) explained: “the processes of environmental degradation and
appropriation of natural resources by a few have specific class-gender as well
as locational implications. . . . ‘Women’ therefore cannot be posited . . . as a
unitary category, even within a country, let alone across the Third World or
globally” (150). Instead of locating the domination of women and of nature in
ideology alone, Agarwal pointed to the “material sources of dominance (based
on economic advantage and political power)” and the importance of “women’s
lived material relationship with nature” (151). Like Christine Cuomo (1998)
and Victoria Davion (1994), Agarwal (2001) was concerned that the celebration
of women’s defense of nature not be translated “into schemes which increase
women’s work burden, without any assurance of their share in resources, or
of men sharing women’s workloads” (12). To foreground these distinctions,
Agarwal defined her approach as “feminist environmentalism,” as opposed to
“ecofeminism” (ibid.).
Clearly, Agarwal’s distinctions remain critical for an effective ecofeminism
and feminist environmentalism alike, and her term was largely adopted by
feminist geographers and economists. Other branches of activist and scholarly
ecofeminism were already committed to addressing issues of class, culture, and
ethnicity, and most academic ecofeminists responded positively to Agarwal’s
argument, incorporating its key features into their own work though without
renaming their approach.6 By the 1990s, the term “ecofeminism” had already
developed a following, with the terms “ecological feminism” and “feminist
environmentalism” seeming more like intra-disciplinary distinctions, rather
than entirely different approaches. The resistance of mainstream feminism to
ecofeminism seemed to come from sources other than Agarwal’s well-reasoned
claims.
Adopting the academic posture of exposing essentialism, two kinds of cri-
tiques were advanced: One against conflating the categories of sex and gender
and homogenizing women’s experiences, and the other against the inclusion of
species and nature as analytical categories crucial for feminist thought. Only
the first critique was legitimately grounded.
In the 1990s, ecofeminists themselves explored the manifestations of gender
essentialism within ecofeminism, thereby seeking to strengthen and augment
the theory. Davion’s “Is Ecofeminism Feminist?” (1994) distinguished between
the gender essentialism of the “ecofeminine” and the critique of gender roles that
was necessary to ecofeminism: “there may be no unified experience of femininity
36 · Feminist Formations 23.2
(or womanhood),” Davion explained, and, in fact, some elite women may be
oppressors of other women and the natural world alike (19–20). Celebrations of
“the feminine role,” the “feminine principle,” or the “feminine values” of god-
dess spirituality homogenize and essentialize women, equating sex and gender
while erasing critical differences like race and class. Such critical distinctions,
and the emphasis on gender as a social construction, were already articulated
within ecofeminism by King (1989) and Plumwood (1991), and taxonomies of
the diverse ecofeminisms were soon developed (Gaard 1998; Merchant 1995;
Sturgeon 1997). Moreover, the highly effective uses of a “strategic essentialism”
in direct activisms have long been noted by ecofeminists (Bari 1994; Godfrey
2005; Sturgeon 1997) and provide the foundation for later developments of
“material feminisms” (Alaimo and Heckman 2007), as well as Salleh’s feminist
“embodied materialism” (Canavan, Klarr, and Vu 2010).
But in the 1990s, with the increasing visibility of the branch of “animal”
ecofeminism (which had been present from the beginning) through such
publications as Collard and Contrucci’s Rape of the Wild (1989), Adams’s The
Sexual Politics of Meat (1990), three essays (by Adams, Curtin, Slicer) developing
an ecofeminist critique of speciesism in Hypatia’s special issue on “Ecological
Feminism” (Warren 1991), and the first anthology to place species at the center
of ecofeminism, Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature (Gaard 1993b), charges
of essentialism soon dominated the critiques and became the leading edge of
the anti-ecofeminism backlash.
Criticisms of ecofeminism came from both mainstream feminisms and
formerly ecofeminist philosophers. In her retrospective essay on “feminist envi-
ronmentalism” (published by Signs a decade after the earlier ecofeminist review
essay was rejected), Joni Seager (2003a) identifies the criticisms against ecofemi-
nism as the essentialism of the woman–nature connection, and the bifurcations
between spirituality–politics and theory–activism (946). Thompson (2006) like-
wise identifies the criticisms as charges of both essentialism and ethnocentrism.
Few scholars point out the feminist resistance to acknowledging that feminists
can still be oppressors of other women (via race and class privilege) and of other
female animals, which was the uncomfortable point that animal ecofeminists
made: That women’s socially reproductive labor is analogous (though not iden-
tical) to the female reproductive capacities and lives that are exploited in the
production of cows’ milk and the female egg-laying capacity that is exploited
in chickens (Adams 1990; Gruen 1993, 2009). Throughout the 1980s, 1990s,
and into the new millennium, vegetarian ecofeminists foregrounded species as
they addressed the intersections of feminism, ecology, race, class, gender, and
nation through a variety of issues: Animal experimentation and the myth of
the animal’s willing sacrifice; industrialized animal food production and its
reliance on undocumented immigrant workers (who risk deportation if they
report their hazardous workplace conditions); vegan and vegetarian diets in
relation to social and environmental justice, as well as to human and animal
Greta Gaard · 37
Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression” (1990), and Marilyn Frye’s (1983) birdcage
analogy of the intertwining wires as different structures of oppression. Like
George and Dixon, Stange’s work also overlooked feminist and ecofeminist
theory, advancing a liberal feminist argument that women should join men in
hunting both for its “transformation of consciousness” and its alleged empower-
ment, but failing to consider “the fundamental insight of animal ecofeminism:
The importance of speciesism as a form of oppression that is interconnected
with and reinforcing of other oppressive structures” (Gaard 2000, 206). After
rejecting cultural ecofeminism’s celebration of goddess spirituality, Stange then
celebrated Artemis the Hunter as a model of women’s empowerment—a visible
contradiction that did not deter mainstream feminists from using Stange’s work
to discredit ecofeminsm.
Among ecofeminist philosophers, vegan ecofeminists already had advanced
a carefully nuanced approach to consumption that eschewed universalizing,
ahistorical claims in Curtin’s “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care” (1991).
Curtin’s theory of a contextual moral vegetarianism explains that “the reasons
for moral vegetarianism may differ by locale, by gender, as well as by class,”
and while there does not exist “an absolute moral rule that prohibits meat
eating under all circumstances” (69), it is clear that “moral vegetarianism is
completely compelling as an expression of an ecological ethic of care . . . for
economically well-off persons in technologically advanced countries” (70). Yet,
the most prominent ecofeminist philosophers began distancing themselves
from ecofeminism’s animal ethics, first with Warren’s use of the term (and title)
“ecological feminism” (1994), and her later disassociation from the interspe-
cies ethics of Gaard’s Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature (1993b) with her
play on the title in Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature (1997). And while
Plumwood’s life-altering experience as prey for a crocodile (1995) informed
her philosophy, it took five years for her to make a public statement about her
own ethical vegetarianism, wherein she distanced herself from other animal
ecofeminists by naming her approach as “critical feminist eco-socialist analysis”
(2000, 2002). By the turn of the millennium, other prominent ecofeminist or
feminist environmentalists (Seager 2003b; Warren 2000) finally announced
their vegetarianism as well.
In conjunction with the charges of essentialism were the criticisms of
ecofeminism’s allegedly essentialist spirituality that both gendered the earth
as female and led to elite, apolitical retreat and individual salvation rather
than inspiring engaged struggles for local, community-wide, and global eco-
justice. Yet, ecofeminist theory, spirituality, and practice have consistently been
rooted in activism that challenges any notions of essentialism. Both Catriona
Mortimer-Sandilands (2008) and Chaone Mallory (2010) have explored the
forest defense movement in the Pacific Northwest, with the former author
exploring the contested role of ecofeminism in the 1993 Clayoquot Sound peace
camp, and Mallory uncovering the role that gender, sexuality, and earth-based
Greta Gaard · 39
Keep the Focus, Lose the Name: Ecofeminists in the New Millennium
On my way from the parking lot into the gym, I caught up to a senior feminist
scholar whose primary interests were in antiracist feminism and coalition-build-
ing, and who had provided the only Euro-American Jewish lesbian perspective
on my dissertation committee long ago. She told me about her current research
projects, and then I described the article I was writing about the antifeminist
backlash against ecofeminism.
“Where are the women of color?” she asked pointedly.
“Everywhere,” I replied, listing the issues of food security, environmental
toxins, reproductive justice, forestry, urban and rural housing, hydropower dams,
and more. But my colleague’s question articulated the persistent mainstream
feminist assumption that ecofeminism was ethnocentric, elitist, and essential-
ist—just a “white women’s thing” and an irrelevant distraction from feminism’s
more critical work addressing social injustices.9
It is no wonder that feminist scholars and activists eager to receive the
acceptance and respect accorded to rigorous scholarship and committed to
sparking consciousness-change that results in real actions have taken the
anarchist strategy of abandoning institutions and terms that no longer func-
tion as conduits for critical ideas, and have continued their work under dif-
ferent labels. What terminology should be used? What language has the most
communicative force? In 1997, Noël Sturgeon advocated retaining the word
“ ‘ecofeminism’ as a term [that] indicates a double political intervention, of
environmentalism into feminism and feminism into environmentalism” (169),
42 · Feminist Formations 23.2
but a decade later, Sturgeon (2009) had also renamed her approach as “global
feminist environmental justice.” Working as an ecofeminist theorist throughout
the 1990s, Mortimer-Sandilands’s most recent work advances her earlier work
on ecofeminism, democracy, and sexuality in her co-edited volume, through
the term Queer Ecologies (Mortimer-Sandilands and Erickson 2010).
Similarly, the ecofeminist corrective distinction between essentialism and
an acknowledgment of embodied, material connections with the environment,
first articulated in Slicer’s “Toward an Ecofeminist Standpoint Theory” (1998)
and also visible in both breast cancer and environmental justice activisms alike,
is carried forward in Alaimo and Heckman’s Material Feminisms (2007). There,
the editors note that
predominant feminist theories, from Simone de Beauvoir to Gayle Rubin and
Monique Wittig, have pursued a “flight from nature,” relentlessly disentangling
“woman” from the supposed ground of essentialism, reductionism, and stasis.
The problem with this approach, however, is that the more feminist theories
distance themselves from “nature,” the more that very nature is implicitly or
explicitly reconfirmed as the treacherous quicksand of misogyny. (4)
Another feminist scholar, Simon Estok (2009), who has made a point
of exploring the intersections between ecofeminism and ecocriticism in his
own work (2001), explains his silence about using the term “ecofeminism” in
this way:
I want to be very clear about my position: For me, it is not ecocriticism if it
is not also demonstrably committed to feminism. . . . [so] my use of the term
“ecocriticism” is, in some sense, strategic. I think that mainstream ecocritics
(many of the men and certainly some of the women) react strongly against
ecofeminism simply because it is done mainly by women. . . . most men see
ecofeminism as at best peripheral and at worst as a threat (which really means
most men see women as peripheral or as a threat). Perhaps I’m wrong, but
raw sexism in its most basic form, if you ask me, is the first thing behind the
backlash. (emphasis in original)
Acknowledgments
Greta Gaard currently serves on the Executive Council of the Association for the
Study of Literature and the Environment. Her research and activism address the local
and global intersections of gender, race, sexuality, species, and ecology. Her essays
have appeared in Alternatives, The Ecologist, Women & Environments, ISLE:
Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and the Environment, Hypatia, Ethics
& the Environment, Environmental Ethics, Signs, and other journals, bringing
a feminist perspective to explore intersections of social, species, and environmental
justice. Her book publications include Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature
(Temple University Press, 1993); Ecofeminist Literary Criticism (University of
Illinois Press, 1998); Ecological Politics: Ecofeminists and the Greens (Temple
University Press, 1998); and a book of creative nonfiction, The Nature of Home
(University of Arizona Press, 2007). She can be reached at greta.gaard@uwrf.edu.
Greta Gaard · 45
Notes
References
———. 1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New
York: Continuum.
Agarwal, Bina. 2001. “A Challenge for Ecofeminism: Gender, Greening and Community
Forestry in India.” Women & Environments International 52/53: 12–15.
———. 1992. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist
Studies 18(1): 119–59.
Alaimo, Stacy. 2000. Undomesticated Ground: Recasting Nature as Feminist Space. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
———, and Susan Heckman, eds. 2007. Material Feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Bari, Judi. 1994. Timber Wars. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press.
Biehl, Janet. 1991. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Blackwell, Diana. 1994. “In Search of Subsistence.” The Women’s Review of Books 11(5):
28.
Brown, Wilmette. 1983. “Roots: Black Ghetto Ecology.” In Reclaim the Earth: Women
Speak Out for Life on Earth, ed. Léonie Caldecott and Stephanie Leland, 73–85.
London: Women’s Press.
Buege, Douglas. 1994. “Rethinking Again: A Defense of Ecofeminist Philosophy.” In
Ecological Feminism, ed. Karin J. Warren, 42–63. New York: Routledge.
Caldecott, Léonie, and Stephanie Leland, eds. 1983. Reclaim the Earth: Women Speak
Out for Life on Earth. London: Women’s Press.
Canavan, Gerry, Lisa Klarr, and Ryan Vu. 2010. “Embodied Materialism in Action: An
Interview with Ariel Salleh.” Polygraph 22: 183–99.
Carlassare, Elizabeth. 1993. “Essentialism in Ecofeminist Discourse.” In Ecology:
Key Concepts in Critical Theory, ed. Carolyn Merchant, 220–34. Amherst, NY:
Humanity Books.
Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Cassuto, David N. 2010. “The CAFO Hothouse: Climate Change, Industrial Agriculture
and the Law.” Animals & Society Institute policy paper.
Clorfene-Casten, Liane. 1996. Breast Cancer: Poisons, Profits, and Prevention. Monroe,
ME: Common Courage Press.
Colburn, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers. 1996. Our Stolen Future.
New York: Penguin.
Collard, Andrée, with Joyce Contrucci. 1989. Rape of the Wild: Man’s Violence against
Animals and the Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Cook, Alice, and Gwyn Kirk. 1983. Greenham Women Everywhere: Dreams, Ideas, and
Actions from the Women’s Peace Movement. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Cuomo, Christine. 1998. Feminism and Ecological Communities: An Ethic of Flourishing.
London: Routledge.
Curtin, Deane. 1991. “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care.” Hypatia: A Journal of
Feminist Philosophy 6(1): 60–74.
Daly, Mary. 1978. Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Davion, Victoria. 1994. “Is Ecofeminism Feminist?” In Ecological Feminism, ed. Karin J.
Warren, 8–28. New York: Routledge.
48 · Feminist Formations 23.2
Diamond, Irene, and Gloria Feman Orenstein, eds. 1990. Reweaving the World: The
Emergence of Ecofeminism. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
DiPerna, Paula. “Who Can Save the Earth?” The Women’s Review of Books 11(1): 4–5.
Dixon, Beth A. 1996. “The Feminist Connection between Women and Animals.”
Environmental Ethics 18(2): 181–94.
Donovan, Josephine. 1995. “Comment on George’s ‘Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?’ ”
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21(1): 226–29.
———. 1990. “Animal Rights and Feminist Theory.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture
and Society 15(2): 350–75.
Eaton, Heather, and Lois Ann Lorentzen, eds. 2003. Ecofeminism & Globalization:
Exploring Culture, Context, and Religion. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Estok, Simon C. 2009. Personal communication with author, 8 September.
———. 2001. “A Report Card on Ecocriticism.” AUMLA: The Journal of the Australasian
Universities Language and Literature Association 96: 220–38.
Frye, Marilyn. 1983. The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory. Trumansburg, NY:
Crossing Press.
Gaard, Greta. 2010. “New Directions for Ecofeminism: Toward a More Feminist Eco-
criticism.” ISLE: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 17(4): 1–23.
———. 2003. “Vegetarian Ecofeminism: A Review Essay.” Frontiers 23(3): 117–46.
———. 2001. “Tools for a Cross-Cultural Feminist Ethics: Exploring Ethical Contexts
and Contents in the Makah Whale Hunt.” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy
16(1): 1–26.
———. 2000. “Review of Mary Zeiss Stange, Woman the Hunter.” Environmental Ethics
22(2): 203–06.
———. 1998. Ecological Politics: Ecofeminists and the Greens. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
———. 1997. “Toward a Queer Ecofeminism.” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy
12(1): 114–37.
———. 1996. “Women, Animals, and Ecofeminist Critique.” Environmental Ethics
18(4): 439–41.
———. 1993a. “Ecofeminism and Native American Cultures: Pushing the Limits of
Cultural Imperialism?” In Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, ed. Greta Gaard,
295–314. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
———, ed. 1993b. Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
———. 1992. “Review of Janet Biehl, Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics.” Women and
Environments 13(2): 20–21.
———, and Lori Gruen. 1995. “Comment on George’s ‘Should Feminists Be
Vegetarians?’ ” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21(1): 230–41.
———, and Lori Gruen. 1993. “Ecofeminism: Toward Global Justice and Planetary
Health.” Society and Nature 2(1): 1–35.
Garb, Yaakov Jerome. 1990. “Perspective or Escape? Ecofeminist Musings on Contem-
porary Earth Imagery.” In Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, ed.
Irene Diamond and Gloria Feman Orenstein, 264–78. San Francisco, CA: Sierra
Club Books.
Greta Gaard · 49
George, Kathryn Paxton. 1995. “Reply to Adams, Donovan, and Gaard and Gruen.”
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21(1): 242–60.
———. 1994. “Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture
and Society 19(2): 405–34.
Gibbs, Lois Marie. 1995. Dying from Dioxin. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Godfrey, Phoebe. 2005. “Diane Wilson vs. Union Carbide: Ecofeminism and the Elitist
Charge of Essentialism.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 16(4): 37–56.
Gose, Ben. 1997. “ ‘Woman the Hunter’: A Different View of Ecofeminism.” The
Chronicle of Higher Education 43(49): A9.
Greene, Gayle, and Vicki Ratner. 1994. “A Toxic Link to Breast Cancer?” The Nation,
20 June: 866–69.
Griffin, Susan. 1978. Woman and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her. New York: Harper
& Row.
Gruen, Lori. 2009. “The Faces of Animal Oppression.” In Dancing with Iris: The Phi-
losophy of Iris Marion Young, ed. Ann Ferguson and Mechthild Nagel, 225–37. New
York: Oxford University Press.
———. 2001. “Conflicting Values in a Conflicted World: Ecofeminism and Multicul-
tural Environmental Ethics.” Women & Environments International 52/53: 16–19.
———. 1996. “On the Oppression of Women and Animals.” Environmental Ethics
18(4): 441–44.
———. 1993. “Dismantling Oppression: An Analysis of the Connection between
Women and Animals.” In Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, ed. Greta Gaard,
60–90. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
———. 1992. “Review of Janet Biehl, Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics.” Hypatia: A Journal
of Feminist Philosophy 7(3): 216–20.
Harper, A. Breeze, ed. 2010. Sistah Vegan: Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity,
Health, and Society. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books.
Hawkins, Ronnie. 2001. “Cultural Whaling, Commodification, and Culture Change.”
Environmental Ethics 23(fall): 287–306.
Heller, Chaia. 1999. Ecology of Everyday Life: Rethinking the Desire for Nature. Montreal:
Black Rose Books.
Huggan, Graham, and Helen Tiffin. 2010. Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals,
Environment. New York: Routledge.
jones, pattrice. 2010a. “Harbingers of (Silent) Spring: Archetypal Avians, Avian Arche-
types and the Truly Collective Unconscious.” Spring: The Journal of Archetype and
Culture 83(spring): 183–210.
———. 2010b. “Roosters, Hawks, and Dawgs: Toward an Inclusive, Embodied
Eco-Feminist Psychology.” Feminism and Psychology 20(3): 365–80.
———. 2010c. “Afterword: Liberation as Connection and the Decolonization of Desire.”
In Sistah Vegan: Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society,
ed. A. Breeze Harper, 187–201. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books.
———. 2010d. Personal communication with author, 24 July.
———. 2007. Aftershock: Confronting Trauma in a Violent World—A Guide for Activists
and Their Allies. New York: Lantern Books.
Kalof, Linda, and Amy Fitzgerald, eds. 2007. The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic
and Contemporary Writings. Oxford: Berg.
50 · Feminist Formations 23.2
Mies, Maria. 1986. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the
International Division of Labor. London: Zed Books.
———, and Vandana Shiva. 1993. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books.
Mortimer-Sandilands, Catriona. 2009. Personal communication with author, 11
September.
———. 2008. “Eco/Feminism on the Edge.” International Feminist Journal of Politics
10(3): 305–13.
———, and Bruce Erickson, eds. 2010. Queer Ecologies: Sex, Nature, Politics, Desire.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Murphy, Patrick D. 1988. “Sex-Typing the Planet: Gaia Imagery and the Problem of
Subverting Patriarchy.” Environmental Ethics 10(2): 155–68.
Noske, Barbara. 1997. Beyond Boundaries: Humans and Animals. Montreal: Black Rose
Books.
O’Loughlin, Ellen. 1993. “Questioning Sour Grapes: Ecofeminism and the United Farm
Workers Grape Boycott.” In Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature, ed. Greta
Gaard, 146–66. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Phillips, Layli. 2010. “Veganism and Ecowomanism.” In Sistah Vegan: Black Female
Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society, ed. A. Breeze Harper, 8–19.
Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books.
———, ed. 2006. The Womanist Reader. New York: Routledge.
Plant, Judith, ed. 1989. Healing the Wounds: The Promise of Ecofeminism. Philadelphia,
PA: New Society Press.
Plumwood, Val. 2002. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. New
York: Routledge.
———. 2000. “Integrating Ethical Frameworks for Animals, Humans, and Nature: A
Critical Feminist Eco-Socialist Analysis.” Ethics & the Environment 5(2): 285–322.
———. 1995. “Human Vulnerability and the Experience of Being Prey.” Quadrant,
March: 29–34.
———. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. New York: Routledge.
———. 1992. “The Atavism of Flighty Females.” The Ecologist 22(1): 36.
———. 1991. “Nature, Self, and Gender: Feminism, Environmental Philosophy, and
the Critique of Rationalism.” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 6(1): 3–27.
Roach, Catherine. 1991. “Loving Your Mother: On the Woman–Nature Relationship.”
Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 6(1): 46–59.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford, ed. 1996. Women Healing Earth: Third World Women on
Ecology, Feminism, and Religion. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
———. 1983. Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology. Boston, MA: Beacon
Press.
Salleh, Ariel Kay, ed. 2009. Eco-Sufficiency & Global Justice: Women Write Political
Ecology. London: Pluto Press.
———. 1997. Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx, and the Postmodern. London: Zed
Books.
———. 1984. “Deeper Than Deep Ecology: The Eco-Feminist Connection.” Environ-
mental Ethics 6(4): 339–45.
Sandilands, Catriona. 2001a. “Desiring Nature, Queering Ethics.” Environmental Ethics
23(2): 169–88.
52 · Feminist Formations 23.2
———. 2001b. “From Unnatural Passions to Queer Nature.” Alternatives 27(3): 31–35.
———. 1999. The Good-Natured Feminist: Ecofeminism and the Quest for Democracy.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
———. 1997. “Mother Earth, the Cyborg, and the Queer: Ecofeminism and (More)
Questions of Identity.” NWSA Journal 9(3): 18–40.
———. 1994. “Lavender’s Green? Some Thoughts on Queer(y)ing Environmental
Politics.” UnderCurrents: Journal of Critical Environmental Studies 6(1): 20–24.
Seager, Joni. 2003a. “Rachel Carson Died of Breast Cancer: The Coming of Age of
Feminist Environmentalism.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3):
945–72.
———. 2003b. “Pepperoni or Broccoli? On the Cutting Wedge of Feminist Environ-
mentalism.” Gender Place and Culture 10(2): 167–74.
———. 1993. Earth Follies: Coming to Feminist Terms with the Global Environmental
Crisis. New York: Routledge.
Shapiro, Kenneth, and Margo DeMello. 2010. “The State of Human–Animal Studies.”
Society & Animals 18(3): 307–18.
Shiva, Vandana. 1990. “Development as a New Project of Western Patriarchy.” In
Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, ed. Irene Diamond and Gloria
Feman Orenstein, 189–200. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
———. 1988. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books.
Slicer, Deborah. 1998. “Toward an Ecofeminist Standpoint Theory: Bodies as Grounds.”
In Ecofeminist Literary Criticism: Theory, Interpretation, Pedagogy, ed. Greta Gaard
and Patrick D. Murphy, 49–78. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
———. 1995. “Is There an Ecofeminism–Deep Ecology ‘Debate’?” Environmental Ethics
17(2): 151–69.
———. 1991. “Your Daughter or Your Dog?” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy
6(1): 108–24.
Soper, Kate. 1995. What Is Nature? Culture, Politics and the Non-Human. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Spiegel, Marjorie. 1988. The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery. New
York: Mirror Books.
Spretnak, Charlene, ed. 1982. The Politics of Women’s Spirituality. New York: Anchor/
Doubleday.
Stange, Mary Zeiss. 1997. Woman the Hunter. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
———. 1995. “Feeding on Grace.” The Women’s Review of Books 13(2): 17–18.
Starhawk. “How We Really Shut Down the WTO,” December 1999. Accessed 21
July 2010. <http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activism-writings/activism-writings
.html>.
———. 1982. Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex, and Politics. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
———. 1979. The Spiral Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess.
New York: HarperCollins.
Sturgeon, Noël. 2009. Environmentalism in Popular Culture: Gender, Race, Sexuality, and
the Politics of the Natural. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
———. 1997. Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory, and Political Action.
New York: Routledge.
Taylor, Dorceta E. 1997. “Women of Color, Environmental Justice, and Ecofeminism.” In
Greta Gaard · 53