The term “Ecofeminism” is coined by a French feminist scholar named Francoise d’Eaubonne in a book called Le Féminisme ou la Mort (1974). She called upon the females to participate in saving the planet in which we live, as she thought women have the potential to solve the ecological crisis the whole world has been
faced within the modern times. Ecofeminism links the repression and oppression of women with that of nature.
In general, Ecofeminism is regarded as the third-wave feminist movement. Aside from taking the issues of gender, race, and class into consideration, Ecofeminists also pay great attention to maintaining an eco-friendly system. They regard human beings as part of the organism in the ecosystem. And each individual should be conscious of the complicated issues in the natural environment. In other words, the third-wave feminist movement has shifted its focus from self-identity, gender, and social structure to investigate the relation between human beings and nature. One of the main reasons in the combination of eco-criticism and feminism in Ecofeminism is that in the progression of western civilization, women and nature often serve as an analogy to each other. Both women and nature are the targets that could be controlled, exploited, and occupied under the patriarchal system.
Thus, Ecofeminists attempt to compare the oppression of women to the suppression of nature. Karen J. Warren in Ecofeminism (1997) points out that the domination of nature and the domination of women are operated by the same ideological system. It is the patriarchal system and logocentrism that the Ecofeminists intend to subvert. Ecofeminism investigates the ideology of the relation in the double domination in both women and nature and attempts to overthrow all the domineering ideas and pursue the inter-connectedness between the human race and nature. The first step to debase such domineering concept is to demolish the rigid binary opposition.
Ecofeminists also emphasize the appreciation of diversity and individual differences.
They foreground the “mutuality” among the ecosystem rather than the dominating relation proposed by the Enlightenment. Although there are some diverse perspectives about Ecofeminism, the main task of Ecofeminism is to focus on preventing from the patriarchal domination and preserving the ecological environment. Ecofeminism
insists that human beings and nature are inter-connected and interdependent. Such mutually connected relation cannot be explained by the perspective of anthropocentricism, for the anthropocentric concept endows the privilege to human beings to treat the environment at will. In other words, the idea of anthropocentricism only values the status of nature based on nature’s advantage or benefit toward human beings. This selfish and paradoxical concept had been justified and abused by people for centuries. That is why the environment we live in at present is becoming worse and worse than before—the poisoned food chain, the devastation of the forest and the seas, the horrible effect of the nuclear power plant, the rapid climate change, the polluted soil, the spread of certain disease without cure, and so on. In order to save and protect the degrading environment, Ecofeminists regard the relation between human and nature based on mutual dependence.
Ecofeminists also expose how the ideology of patriarchy naturalizes men’s domineering operation towards nature, women and different races. As Carol J. Adams claims in Ecofeminism and the Sacred (1993), Ecofeminism not only challenges gender inequality suffered by women, but also challenges the idea of materialism and imperialism. Such concept of materialism is often covered by making a great profit and bringing significant advantage towards people, thus, the production of commodity often goes beyond human beings’ necessity. Under such an ideology, nature had become a victim that can be conquered without restraint. In addition, the ideologies of industrialization, materialism and imperialism are in part generated by similar patriarchal thoughts. Ecofeminism attempts to eradicate such ideas in the relation between women and nature.
On the whole, the main task of Ecofeminism is to abridge all the related domineering system rooted in the existing patriarchal system. Therefore, only by sabotaging the patriarchal perspective can we dissolve any biased and one-sided
oppressive practices enacted by the domineering concept. And this is how Ecofeminism differs from the idea in Deep Ecology. In effect, while Deep Ecologists were engaged in the preservation of the ecological system, they fail to notice the patriarchal ideas in considering the original cause of ecological crises. Some of the scholars in Deep Ecology still maintain the innate patriarchal ideology, for they prefer to use the term “rape” to describe the devastation of the natural environment. Or, they tend to use “virgin ground” to describe the forest or lands which have not been invaded or colonized by human beings. In a sense, these metaphors show strong dominating influence of patriarchal power. Besides, the scholars of Deep Ecology often ignore the influence of imperialism, for it had caused the stringent devastation towards nature. Such aggressive invasion prompted by imperialism is often challenged and rebuked by Ecofeminism. And the deterioration of environment also caused serious impacts on female fertility.
Ecofeminism did not emphasize the differences between male and female;
instead, it encourages the partnership between male and female. However, there are other scholars who emphasize the feminine quality of nature and tend to link women with nature, which had caused criticism by scholars. The controversial issues not only show in theological spirituality but also reveal in the diverse opinions on the questions of women and nature.
For example, one of the schools of the Ecofeminist scholars regards “nature” as
“Mother Earth.” They contemplate nature as merciful mother who creates, cultivates, and cares for all the creatures. The scholars with such perspective include Carolyn Merchant, Elizabeth Dodson Gray, and Rosemary Radford Ruether. In The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scientific Revolution (1989), Merchant has pointed out that nature is regarded as the nourishing mother before the Age of Enlightenment—the thought of living organism. Thus, the action of destroying nature
is like murdering one’s own mother. So, people were not willing to destroy nature then. Later on, when it comes to the Age of Reason, scientists had proved that the earth was not a living organism; hence, people began to devastate the planet at will (Merchant 3). Here, Merchant seems to hint that the theory of “Mother Earth” can prevent people from damaging nature. And in Green Paradise Lost (1979), Elizabeth Dodson Gray once claims nature as mother, and she takes the perspective of psychology to analyze the male’s psychological motive upon suppressing women and destroying nature. This is because the male may try to find a path to decamp from the mother on the process of developing his identity. The advancement of technology gives men a chance to depart from nature/mother and become an intellectual identity.
Gray further explained that the male’s Oedipus complex may have great influence on their relation with women. This is why men need to conquer women and dominate the feminine nature.
Aside from these famous scholars, an Australian ecofeminist activist has also exerted immeasurable influence upon the development of Ecofeminism. Val Plumwood in Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (1993) claims that the relation between human beings and nature needs to be rethought, for culture has been used as an instrument to “naturalize domination in both human and non-human spheres”
(Plumwood 6). Thus, such internalized ideology had triggered the operation of patriarchy and cause the domination on women and nature.
Although each ecofeminist scholar maintains diverse opinions on the analogy of nature and women, they still consent with each other in pursuit of solving the unjust domination on women and nature. Many scholars in recent years have attempted to rethink the relation between women and nature thorough different perspectives and religions to draw the connection between women and nature, such as Buddism, Hinduism, goddesses worship and so on. In this way, we may say that Ecofeminism
still continues to develop even though there are quite a few controversial issues in this theory. In a sense this theory is still in progress. Thus, we can remain positive towards the future development of Ecofeminism.