Intersectionality and Ecofeminism

Intersectionality in Feminism is an approach that encompasses all oppressions and the fact they are all interconnected. Kimberle’ Crenshaw first defined it  as a “metaphorical and conceptual tool used to highlight the inability of a single-axis framework to capture the experiences of black women” (Kings). Intersectionality dissects the interconnectedness of race, class, gender, disability, sexuality, caste, religion, age, etc. in relation to discrimination, oppression, and women. “People experience multiple aspects of identity simultaneously and the meanings of different aspects of identity are shaped by one another” (Kang, Lessard and Heston). Crenshaw developed this term in 1989. It was a way for black women to express how they were discriminated against by race and gender and further by class, and economic status. Crenshaw and Patricia Hill assert that environmental movements don’t take black women struggles into account and therefore, “there is no movement that truly addresses the intersectional oppression black women face from sexism and environmental racism” (Cain). The theory of intersectionality is specific but flexible and can be used in a variety of ways when discussing oppression in feminism.

Ecofeminist’s argue that they have been applying the concepts of intersectionality before 1989.

Ecofeminism says, “A healthy, balanced ecosystem, including human and nonhuman inhabitants, must maintain diversity” (Bookchin), diversity that encompasses all living things. Ecofeminism surfaced in the 1970’s and 1980’s and claims to have had an understanding of intersectionality before the term was coined.  Similar to the principles of intersectionality, ecofeminist’s strive to demonstrate how the lives of humans are interconnected in the environment, specifically women in. Further, “classism, sexism, heterosexism, naturism, and speciesism are all intertwined” (Hobgood-Oster). For example, Ynestra King contests that nature and culture are separate thus making an intersectional connection to ecofeminism. Similarly ecofeminist principles suggest an intersectional approach believing, “life is an interconnected, web not a hierarchy” (Bookchin). Ecofeminist principles support diversity and oppose domination and violence. Most central to ecofeminism is that women and nature are oppressed by patriarchal structures. Ecofeminist show the connections between all forms of domination, including the domination of nonhuman nature (Bookchin).

Black Women and Ecofeminism

Despite ecofeminism’s inclusion of an intersectional approach black feminist critique that ecofeminist principles fail to recognize the struggles of black women and their environmental concerns.  In “Women of Color, Environmental Justice and Ecofeminism”, Dorceta Taylor compares how the mainstream environmental movement and the ecofeminist movement focus primarily on the middle class and white women rather than include the black community (Cain).  Although ecofeminist seek to eradicate the patriarchal and economic forms of oppression that degrade women and the environment Taylor says black women of degraded communities are “the waste products of capitalist production and excessive consumption” (Cain). This argument would suggest that ecofeminism is not intersectional its approach.

However, the interconnected web of ecofeminism connects women and the environment as well as race, class, sexuality, religion, disability, species and age.  Martin Luther King Junior said, “No one is free until we are all free.” This quote demonstrates that black people or white people aren’t free until the other is free. According to Kings, “Intersectional ecofeminism builds upon this foundation by further postulating that the ‘freedom’ of humanity is not only reliant on the freedom of nature and women, but it is also reliant on the achievement of liberation for all of those at intersecting points on along these fault lines” (Kings). Ecofeminism’s interconnected web has been looking at the connection of women and the environment in an intersectional way and has evolved to include more ways we can look at ecology and feminism in relation to different degrees of oppression and will continue to evolve. To preserve diversity ecofeminist must look at all participants in an intersectional way. Although intersectionality may not offer a complete solution to issues of difference it can help us to explore ways that different forms of oppression impact those who would otherwise be ignored.

Bibliography

Bookchin, Murray. The Ecology of Feminsm and the Feminism of Ecology. 27 Oct 2019. 26 March 2020 <https://libcom.org/library/ecology-feminism-feminism-ecology>.

Cain, Cacldia. “The Necessity of Balck Women’s Standpoint and Intersectionality in Environmental Movements .” Black Feminist Thought 2016 (2016).

Hobgood-Oster, Laura. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” 31 January 2020 <http://users.clas.ufl.edu/bron/pdf–christianity/Hobgood-Oster–Ecofeminism-International%20Evolution.pdf>.

Kings, A.E. “Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism.” Ethics and the Environment 22.1 (2017).

Annotated Bibliography

Kang, Miliann, et al. Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies . Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries, 2017.

The section of this book on Intersectionality is part of a larger category of gender studies titled, “Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies”. This section details the concept of intersectional analysis. The problem that can be run into is when issues that surround feminism stop at gender. Intersectionality is a theory that can further explore the interconnected issues that apply to feminism. The book on a whole explores other issues that impact feminism such as binary systems, institutions, culture, work-family policy, economy and social movements.

What is the Connection Between Women, Government and the Environment?

According to research having a women in power yields better results for the environment and ecosystem.  Why is this you ask?  The theory is that women are more concerned with environmental issues (1) because they have more pro-environmental values (2) they are more risk averse (3) are more likely to participate in social movements (4) typically suffer disproportionately from environmental degradation (5) and finally sexism and environmental degradation can be a mutually reinforcing process (NorGaard and York 519).  Kari NorGaard and Richard York conducted research to prove this theory.  Based on findings from two countries Norway and Singapore, the conclusion they came to, was that societies with more female representation in government were more likely to have better environmental policies and subsequently healthier environments.  In other words societies that value gender equality are more likely to protect the environment.  So why are women more concerned with environmental issues than men?  Norgaard and York suggest this is because women have been socialized to be family nurturers and caregivers (NorGaard and York 508). Therefore women are more likely to view caring for and nurturing the environment as a priority.

Conventionally men run our government and subsequently influence our laws and policies almost predominantly.

Due to capitalism and patriarchal ideals men have dominated law decisions and policymaking.  Therefore, the contributions of women are seen as invisible in a capitalistic society because any work that does not produce a profit or capital is viewed as non-productive. Ecofeminist argue that women and nature have been dominated by these factors described as ”logic of domination” where women are oppressed and nature is exploited (NorGaard and York 509).  Ecofeminist assert that class and race as well as gender intersect and are built into the social system affecting gender equality and state environmentalism.  Norgaard and York found that gender equality positively impacts state environmentalism however; states that appear to be environmentally responsible are actually the greatest contributors to environmental degradation most likely due to capitalistic and modernized society.

In order for women to make a difference in influencing state policy they would need to make up 30% of government leaders.

Many countries do not meet those requirements including ours. During the time of the study conducted by Norgaard and York, Norway had one of the highest percentages of women in government in the world at 36.4% in sharp contrast to women in Singapore who made up only 4.3% (NorGaard and York 515).  The major factor that contributed to these numbers was gender. Norway’s key political leader at the time was a woman, Gro Harlem Bruntland who valued issues such as women’s rights, human health, children, the environment, and future generations. In contrast Singapore had an overall lack of interest in gender equality and state environmentalism.  This is due in part to women’s limited participation in government policy making and the lack of environmental programs.  The results of Norgaard and York’s analysis support ecofeminist theory that gender equality specifically in government positively influences state environmentalism.

Norgaard and York discuss that women are more concerned than men with environmental issues for many reasons including their tendency to be family nurturers and caregivers. An example that demonstrates Norgaard and York’s theory comes from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.  The Massachusetts DEP leaders consist of primarily males including the commissioner Martin Suuberg.  Of the seven members that make up the political leaders of the DEP only one of them are women.  This directly correlates with Norgaard and York’s analysis that there are more men identified as political leaders and this case directly impacting environmental decisions. The possible result is men more than women will influence the policies implemented by the Massachusetts DEP.  (https://www.mass.gov/service-details/about-massdep) Interestingly enough when looking at how Massachusetts compares with other states when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, “Massachusetts is starting to fall behind other states which have passed aggressive carbon emissions standards” (LeBlanc).

Below is a quote and statistic from the Pew Research Center that shows Norgaard and York’s general thesis:

“There are areas where the public sees female leaders as having an advantage. In both business and politics, majorities say women are better than men when it comes to being compassionate and empathetic, and substantial shares say women are better at working out compromises and standing up for what they believe in. Similarly, more adults say female political leaders do a better job of serving as role models for children (41%) and maintaining a tone of civility and respect (34%) than say the same about men”

(https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/09/20/women-and-leadership-2018/)

This statistic reiterates the results of analysis NorGaard and York conducted that women have a tendency to be more compassionate than men because of their traditional role of being caretakers and nurturers therefore paying more attention to issues such as environmentalism.

Bibliography

LeBlanc, Steve. Massachusetts Senate approves ‘net zero’ environmental bills. 30 January 2020. 18 March 2020 <https://www.gazettenet.com/Massachusetts-Senate-approves-net-zero-environmental-bills-32367325>.

Norgaard, Kari and Richard York. “Gender Equality and State Environmentalism.” Gender and Society August 2005: 506-522.

Annotated Bibliography: In this article Steve LeBlanc reports what Massachusetts is lacking in environmental laws and policies and what bills the senate can pass to rectify Massachusetts failure to comply with environmental laws . The article explains that several bills are waiting to be passed by congress with the goal to for a statewide “net zero” emissions greenhouse gas by the year 2050.