Reclaiming Identity

If one attempts to go beyond colonized identity, one cannot but notice the critical affirmation in reclaiming one’s identity. As Plumwood notes, the reworking of gender identity is related to “elements of transcendence” and “elements of affirmation.”

Hence, what we attempt to reclaim is a healthy feminist identity, which requires “a good balance between self-criticism and self-affirmation. In the same way, critical reconstruction requires the balancing of conflicting imperatives towards redefinition and revaluing” (Feminism and the Mastery of Nature 65). Since colonized identity seems to be a prison for the colonized, it is pivotal to maintain affirmation to reclaim his or her identity. And “affirmation,” suggested by Plumwood, “is essential to counter the logic of the master subject, who inferiorises women both individually and culturally, backgrounds and devalues their works, and defines them as peripheries to the master’s centre” (Feminism and the Mastery of Nature 63). Under the systems of oppression, the identities of the colonized and the colonizer seem to be intertwined with each other. In this light, “women are not only the colonised in relation to gender, but are also themselves the colonisers (for example, in relation to other races and cultures, classes and species), critical reconstruction of identity normally involves not only affirming and rebuilding subordinated identities, but also reconstructing master identities” (Plumwood1993: 67). Accordingly, Plumwood suggests that women should try to shake off the “master identity,” for such ideology has been implemented upon western culture for centuries. I think the concept of reclaiming one’s identity is connected to what Frantz Fanon suggests, “I refuse to accept that amputation. I feel in myself a soul as immerse as the world, truly a soul as deep as the deepest of rivers, my chest has the power to expand without limit. I am a master and I am advised to adopt the humility of the cripple” (Fanon 125). To some extent, such awakening in one’s identity is necessary but cannot be taken to an extreme. What I want to emphasize is that to reclaim one’s identity does not mean to exclude the others or to dominate the others. Since we are interconnected with each other, we cannot be alienated from the other races. In an essay entitled “Learning to Live with Differences:

The Challenge of Ecofeminist Community,” Judith Plant suggests that Western

civilization seems to be unconscious of the notion that the natural world and humankind are, in fact, interdependent to each other as a coexisting web. As Plant suggests, the establishment of ecofeminist community would benefit from healing the broken relationships among nature and humankind. In doing so, Plant asserts that

“humanity must turn toward ecocommunity: the creation of vibrant and sustainable human communities, a way of being in this world that reflects a respect and love for all of life” (“Learning to Live with Differences: The Challenge of Ecofeminist Community” 121). What Plant encourages here is to live a harmonious way with all the distinctness in the ecosystem. In other words, Plant encourages us to learn from the natural world because “good health is sustained by a tolerance of diversity, and stability is a result of ongoing mutual aid between and among species” (“Learning to Live with Differences: The Challenge of Ecofeminist Community” 121). Such idea is similar to Morrison’s idea in her interview with Verdelle, for the main target in Paradise is “talking about the concept of living in a good space and wanting goodness

for its own sake, not for its glamour, not for its feel-good qualities, not for its notoriety, but in and of itself” (Verdelle 169).

In short, if we learn to respect different races and understand the fact we are all depend on each other rather than exclude the others, then, it is possible to reclaim one’s identity and build a healthy community. Hence, it is imperative to recognize the importance of “interdependence” and act accordingly in the future.

In a sense, Paradise demonstrates, among other things, how nature is bound up with racist viewpoints and the intraracial conflicts. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, I have scrutinized the logic of dualism, the denial of t colonized identity, radical exclusion (hyperseparation), and the identity conflict with the aid of Plumwood’s theory. I argue that if we want to establish a paradise, it is essential to live in accord with different races, rather than exclude the others by regulating the

strict racial boundary. And the idea of building an “Ecotopia” will be discussed in the next chapter.

Chapter Three

The Interconnectedness of Nature and Eco-community in Paradise

On the whole, Morrison’s Paradise bears witness to the failure of an all-black of community. Under the traumatic historical background, the founding fathers have experienced the abjections not only from the white but also from the light-skinned blacks. Accordingly, the influence of shame and humiliation brought up by slavery history compels the founding fathers into establishing a supposed utopia in Ruby town.

Nevertheless, the excluded community in Ruby expounds the disillusion of a perfect paradise on the basis of monotony, uniformity, and fixedness. On the contrary, the Convent epitomizes an easily accessible place, with its harmonious relations with nature, where the broken-hearted women are at liberty to come and go. In a manner, the tenacious connection with nature in the Convent allows the resident to transform, flourishing in the dynamic ecosystem and propagating themselves under the nourishment of nature.

Therefore, this chapter focuses on the interconnection of nature and eco-community. Divided into four sections, section one investigates the meaning of and the search for ecotopia. In the following section, I discuss the paradoxical consideration in imagining the ecosystem community as a nurturing mother. In section Three, I argue that religion serves as the nurturing power in Paradise. In the final section, I scrutinize the cultural and collective identity of the eco-community, which I also explore the significance of naming and healing from the eco-community in Paradise. My primary goal in this chapter is to explore the potential of ecofeminism

in the discussion of the interconnection of nature and eco-community.

As a whole, ecofeminism focuses on disconnecting the interrelated oppressive structure in the community. In “Ecofeminism: Linking Theory and Practice,” Janis Birkeland points out that Ecofeminism is not only a social movement, rather, it also

“offers a political analysis that explores the links between androcentrism and environmental destruction” (Birkeland 18). Namely, Ecofeminism takes a political approach to reveal the existing problems between nature and the socially constructed community. In an essay entitled with “A Cross-Cultural Critique of Ecofeminism,”

Huey-li Li proposes that “the praxis of ecofeminism aims at ending many interrelated oppressive systems” (Li 289). To ecofeminists, “nature is not an abstract, static, and fixed entity, but rather a complex and interconnected web of life” (Li 290). Such idea of community as an interconnected web is similar to Plant, as she suggests, “in the natural world, where all life is interrelated, teeming with diversity and complexities, so it is with everyday human life” (“Learning to Live with Differences: The Challenge of Ecofeminist Community” 133). Since we are all connected, we attempt to build up an ideal community in which to live; however, I think such an idea implies a search for utopia, or, I would say, an ecotopia. And in The Pursuit of Ecotopia (2010), E. N.

Anderson defines ecotopia by saying: “ecotopia would be a place of love and freedom.

It would be a world of free choices and many options, rather than a world of uniformity. Ecotopia, like sustainability, is a process goal” (The Pursuit of Ecotopia 207).

The image of ecotopia, suggested by Ynestra King, conveys the “utopian visions of harmonious, diverse, decentralized communities, using only those technologies based on ecological principles, as the only practical solution for the continuation of life on earth” (King 25). The beautiful and harmonious image of ecotopia is also echoed by Plumwood,

the story of a land where women live at peace with themselves and with the natural world is a recurrent theme of feminist utopias. This is a land where there is no hierarchy, among humans or between humans and animals, where people care for one another and for nature, where the earth and the

forest retain their mystery, power and wholeness, where the power of technology and of military and economic force does not rule the earth, or at least that part of it controlled by women. (Feminism and the Mastery of Nature 7)

However, such an ecological community as a life-supporting system is often destroyed by patriarchal dominance. In “Toward an Ecological-Feminist Theology of Nature,” Rosemary Radford Ruether argues that, “the notion of dominating the universe from a position of autonomy is an illusion of alienated consciousness”

(Ruether 148). In establishing an eco-community, Plant suggests that we should embraces differences. As Plant argues, “without embracing diversity, the various organizations and factions would continue to be limited to single-issue struggles. But by building common ground, this coalition could do more than fight corporate forestry practices” (“Learning to Live with Differences: The Challenge of Ecofeminist Community” 139). At some point, Plant proceeds “to create a community in which our differences could work together for the common well-being of both people and place. After all, this is nature’s pattern: diversity is the sign of a healthy and stable ecosystem” (“Learning to Live with Differences: The Challenge of Ecofeminist Community” 139). A healthy and stable ecosystem, I believe, is what Morrison has proposed in the Convent, in which she emphasizes the importance of to establish a sustainable and dynamic community, one that accepts diversity and difference. On the other hand, if a community only accepts the people within the limited boundary, such a community would be at a deadlock. In other words, embracing diversity also implies a love of nature. According to Chaia Heller, “love of nature emerges from knowledge of oppression and potential liberation within our eco-communities. We learn this love by actively caring for our social and natural eco-communities, by fighting all forms of social oppression, and by expressing our potential for cooperation and creative

enhancement of nature” (Heller 234).

In short, all of the community is interconnected with nature. There is no culture or society exists exclusively or secluded. Hence, “we will strive to know and care for the resistance of all living things that dwell in poisoned eco-communities, offering ourselves as allies in resistance to social and ecological degradation. The question will no longer be how to ‘protect’ nature, but, rather, how to liberate humans within society so that we may create a harmonious, ecological world” (Heller 235).