Ecofeminism(s) in Postcolonial Studies

Index

1. Introduction

2. Ecofeminism

3. Ecofeminism in the ecology of knowledge

4. Ecofeminism(s): criticisms and pluralities

5. Conclusion

Bibliography

1. Introduction

In this essay we will delve into ecofeminisms within the framework of one of the themes addressed in the seminar, Climate and the South. We will do so in and from the context of the ecology of knowledges proposed by Boaventura de Sousa Santos in “Beyond Abyssal Thinking: From Global Lines to Ecologies ofKnowledges”.

We consider that at least the mention of the existence of these feminisms is of great importance in a first approach to Climate in the South. Even more, if we take into account that in these feminisms we find not only critical theory but also practical proposals.

In addition, these feminisms include ancestral knowledge of native peoples and many of their notable voices are indigenous women. In this paper we will focus on the origin of ecofeminisms and some of the contemporary critiques that have been made of them. Thus, we leave ecofeminist fiction and theology out of the present essay.

We proceed in this way because, within the framework of postcolonial studies, most authors acknowledge the influence of feminist criticism coming from the Global North. However, the contributions of feminisms emerging from the South are rarely included in specific topics such as the one that occupied us in the seminar.

As we will see in this paper, ecofeminisms connect in their midst, on the one hand, with the different struggles that concern both the native peoples who fight for their rights, as well as the people living in the big cities of the Global South who pursue a destructive idea of progress.

On the other hand, ecofeminisms connect with concepts within very important postcolonial studies such as the colonization of the mind (or second colonization) by the Indian political psychologist and social theorist Ashis Nandy and the coloniality of power by the Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano.

Therefore, with this paper we hope to demonstrate that ecofeminism is a branch of feminism that is not relegated to theoretical postulates in the Global North, but is, above all, a movement that connects social issues in the Global South, providing them with a theoretical basis through which they can be analyzed.

2. Ecofeminism

Ecofeminism as a critical theory emerges as the logical and harmonious encounter between the ecological movement and feminism. As far as ecologism is concerned, the questioning of the economic logic of the industrial system, the social control of technological means, as well as the confrontation with the fallacy that technology is the solution to all problems are the points that stand out in the introduction of Ecofeminism, the book we will use as a reference. The authors are Maria Mies, German sociologist and author of several feminist books, and Vandana Shiva, Indian environmental activist, theoretical physicist and philosopher. (Vandana Shiva. International Women’s Day - 8 March, 2006, 2012).

Both authors found common problems in their respective areas of work in which nature and women were the points of convergence. For this reason, they developed between the 80s and 90s what are considered the most elaborated theories of ecofeminism that they would publish in the book Ecofeminism in 1993 (Beltran Peredo, 2017). However, the places from which both authors write are different and are far apart, not only physically but also theoretically, and this is something that the authors keep in mind when writing their postulates.

For this reason, they begin their joint work by answering the question “Why We Wrote this Book Together”. They do so by remarking that they do not intend to create “a new internationalism” but rather that they have come to the realization that there are aspects of global policies that affect women worldwide.

This system emerged, is built upon and maintains itself through the colonization of women, of 'foreign' peoples and their lands; and of nature, which it is gradually destroying. As feminists actively seeking women's liberation from male domination, we could not, however, ignore the fact that 'modernization' and 'development' processes and 'progress' were responsible for the degradation of the natural world. (Mies & Shiva, 2014, p. 2)

In this way, the feminist critique takes further the ecological critique of capitalism and its abuses against nature. Science and technology are not gender neutral, and the relationship between men and nature is of the same oppressive and exploitative nature that we find in patriarchal societies. (Mies & Shiva, 2014, p. 3).

In addition, the field experience of both authors allows them to connect environmental issues that affect women on a global level:

A closer examination of the numerous local struggles against ecological destruction and deterioration, for example: against atomic power plants in Germany, against chalk mining and logging in the Himalayas; the activities of the Green Belt Movement in Kenya; and of Japanese women against food pollution by chemically-stimulated, commercial agriculture and for self-reliant producer-consumer networks; poor women's efforts in Ecuador to save the mangrove forests as breeding-grounds for fish and shrimp; the battle of thousands of women in the South the battle of thousands of women in the South for better water management, soil conservation, land use, and maintenance of their survival base (forests, fuel, fodder) against the industrial interests, confirmed that many women, worldwide, felt the same anger and anxiety, and the same sense of responsibility to preserve the bases oflife, and to end its destruction. (Mies & Shiva, 2014, p. 3)

Thus, we find that ecofeminism is built from social movements in defense of nature that trace back to the ancestral struggles of women for the defense of their territories and, therefore, oflife. Vandana Shiva delves deeper into these issues in “The Impoverishment of the Environment: Women and Children Last”, the fifth chapter of Ecofeminism. Here, Shiva points out, on the one hand, that colonialism is a necessary condition for sustaining capitalism which, in turn, creates an idea of poverty in the colonies that responds to Western patterns of consumption, while it creates in the colonized territories the conception of needing private property in their relations—once alien—to profit.[1].

In this sense, it is understood that colonialism imposes an idea of linear progress through psychological and cultural invasion—defined as the “colonization of the mind” or “the second colonization” (Nandy, 2009) by Indian political psychologist and social theorist Ashis Nandy— through the inscription of moral codes which, in the case oflndia, which was a British colony, would be the Protestant work ethic that glorifies productivity, effort and male domination of public life. (Nandy & Lopez Areu, 2021, p. 14). Nandy analyzes the relationship between gender and political domination in the colonies by distinguishing [1] From this point, we consider that it is possible to connect these ideas in a first phase with Ashis Nandy's "colonization of the mind" and, in a second phase, with Anibal Quijano's "coloniality of power". Given the context and temporal proximity of the Works—Nandy's Intimate Enemy was published ten years before Mies and Shiva's Ecofeminism and Quijano formulated his concept in the early 1990s—we consider it more fruitful for the task at hand to develop the relationship between the postulates ofMies, Shiva and Nandy.

[...]