Deborah Slicer
21600 Whitetail Ridge Road
Huson, Montana 59846
U.S.A.
A number of ecofeminists assert or imply that women are closer to nature than men. This claim, probably more than any other, has influenced both popular and academic perceptions of ecofeminism and, not surprisingly, has caused many people to reject ecofeminsim. My view is that the claim, as it is so broadly and vaguely stated, is if not incoherent, at least false. But I also think that some very qualified versions of this claim, as recently articulated by some international ecofeminists, warrant serious consideration. And if what these latter ecofeminists suggest about women's connection to nature is true, then it becomes more evident than ever that women's marginalization from environmental activism is a serious problem.
I first look at the problematic claim that women, generically, are closer to nature than men, generically. I argue that the perception that all ecofeminists make this claim and that this claim is synonymous with ecofeminism is unfounded. On the other hand, some ecofeminists have indeed made this sort of claim. I try to discern what being "closer" to nature means in this literature and to discern which women are allegedly closer to nature, and I look at the explanations some ecofeminists give for why women are associated with nature in this way. I conclude that such vague and over-generalized claims about men and women and their relationships with nature cannot be taken seriously.
Other claims which do not over-generalize or which are at least argued with more conceptual clarity merit serious consideration. Works by Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva and Australian philosopher Ariel Sallah are cases in point. What these ecofeminists seem to mean when they say that women are closer to nature is that women have an epistemological "standpoint", or a particular knowledge not so readily available to their oppressors. Feminist philosophers Alison Jaggar, Sandra Harding, and Maria Lugones write extensively on standpoint epistemology. In part two of the paper, I look at what they say about standpoints and briefly at what critics say about the theory. Then, I look at Shiva's and Salleh's works in light of standpoint epistemology. It's particularly important to note that both Shiva and Salleh say that standpoints are products of biology. So only some women may enjoy a standpoint vis a vis nature and not all men are excluded from having a standpoint vis a vis nature.
That is, some indigenous peoples, both men and women, of an earth-based culture may have a standpoint, while some women of a highly industrialized society which is quite alienated from nature may not have such a standpoint.
Finally, I look at the types of women in the industrialized west who likely have some sort of privileged knowledge relevant to nature and our environmental crisis. It seems to me that many of these women are severely marginalized in general and marginalized from the environmental movement in particular. I speculate on how their participation in certain western environmental movements would change these movements both philosophically and in practice.
Return to In Search of New Ethics
Return to Home Page (Women, Politics, and Environmental Action)