Ecofeminism k framework



Download 174.57 Kb.
Page4/6
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size174.57 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6

The Alternative

Ocean-gnosis Module

We must view the oceans as divine. Such ocean-gnosis is key to resolve our patriarchal domination of nature.


Harbold ’1. [Thomas H. Harbold, ecology author. Spiral Nature. “The Earth is a Witch: Ecofeminism, Deep Ecology, and the Pagan Movement.” http://www.spiralnature.com/spirituality/paganism/earthwitch.html]

"It is all real, it is all metaphor, there is always more." Wicca, and Paganism in general, is multifaceted and diverse in its perception of divine reality, as has been touched on in the main text. Some Witches, especially those coming from a radical feminist (Dianic) tradition, view the Goddess as the sole deity- image, whether seen as myth, metaphor, or objective being; others are radically poly theist, attributing objective, personal identity to the various deities of the numerous pantheons. The mainstream position in the Craft, however-insofar as it is possible to make such a generalization-is for a balanced polarity between "female" (Goddess) and "male" (God) energies. Even here, however, there are a wide variety of models by which that divine reality is understood. One of the most interesting of these, and one which would probably be embraced, at least in general terms, by a significant plurality of Witches and other Pagans is that put forward by Pagan Way in the 1970s. This was a celebratory/teaching ritual circle in New York which served as an "Outer Court" group in which those interested in learning more about the Craft could do so without investing the commitment of time and energy required by those seeking initiation into a coven. For some, it also served as a point of entry into a coven, but others seem to have attended Pagan Way rituals for years without getting deeper into the mysteries of the religion. Pagan Way defines three "Levels" of "the Gods of the Craft" (Fitch, pp. 11-12). Level 1 is "absolute Godhead-the level of transcendence, gnosis," at which level the ultimate unity of the divine nature is stressed; this could be seen as the level of philosophical or metaphysical monotheism. Level 2 brings out the "harmonious and creative duality of the God and Goddess." It is at this stage, most characteristic of Wicca as it is perceived by outsiders, that "the Absolute" becomes subjectively discernible through reason, emotion, etc., rather than merely via intuitive enlightenment or gnosis; at this level Wicca may be seen as duotheistic. Level three is the archetypal level, that to which "belong the gods and goddesses which are worshipped by the worldly religions"; it is at this level that Wicca and Paganism generally may be viewed as polytheistic religions. It is important to note that these levels are mutually complementary and inter woven, not mutually exclusive; all are "true" as models or methods of apprehending the divine reality, the question is merely of the approach one takes to the question. It is precisely this awareness, succinctly captured in the "it is all real, it is all metaphor, there is always more" assessment quoted at the beginning of this appendix, in which lies the greatest strength of Wicca and Paganism thealogically. The recognition that divine real ity, like mundane reality, is multifaceted and diverse, and may be apprehended through a variety of means, may be disorienting or disconcerting for those accustomed to a "one, true, and only way" model of religious "Truth." It is, however, intensely liberating for those seeking both ecological sanity and an end to patriarchal models of dominance. The tripartite "levels" model described above is, of course, only one way of conceptual izing this mytho-poetic, metaphorical, yet on some level "real" truth; the point is that this model points toward a way of looking at the world which has the potential to be vastly liberating. Such models allow us to, for example, venerate this good Earth not as a means to a "higher" end, but as its/herself an epiphany of the divine reality; to seriously engage the archetypal figures of the ancient pantheons in seeking out their lessons (both positive and negative) for today; to experience and internalize the ecstatic dance of union of the (metaphorically, not literally gendered) "female" and "male" energies of the Goddess and God; to stand in awe of That Which transcends all our normal, human ways of looking at reality. Such models allow us to choose any of these ways, or all of them, to aid us in our quest for ecopsychic harmony, to help us-first in our own lives, then in the wider world-to reweave the web which joins humankind, Nature, and God/dess.

Affirmation of nature as a transcendent, post-patriarchal unified being, as opposed to an object is uniquely key to end the technological assault of the 1AC.


Zimmerman ’90 [Michael E., professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. “DEEP ECOLOGY AND ECOFEMINISM: THE EMERGING DIALOGUE” http://www.dhushara.com/book/renewal/voices2/deep.htm#anchor2860962]

Many ecofeminists agree that the technological assault upon the Earth is the culmination of a direction in human history that took a particularly virulent form in Europe.8 In the Europe of several thousand years ago, before the emergence of agriculturally based cities and before the onslaught of the Goddess-slaying, Sky-Father-worshipping nomadic horsemen, there was no patriarchy. Society was apparently non-hierarchical, non-authoritarian, and non-dualistic. Human worship was directed at the Goddess, the female divinity regarded by women and men alike as the source of all life and bounty and goodness. Gradually, however, the Goddess was displaced by the new Father God. Feminists have often interpreted this new God as the projection of the male's hierarchical, patriarchal, domineering, and authoritarian attitude. While the Goddess affirmed the goodness and primacy of the body and the Earth, the God affirmed the goodness and primacy of the spirit/soul and heaven. But this is not the only possible interpretation of the Father God. C. G. Jung and psychotherapist Erich Neumann have argued that the emergence of the Father God was consistent with the development of human consciousness from out of a relatively collective state to one of increasing individuation.9 They see the solar God as representing the clarity of the free-willed, self-assertive, rational ego-self. For this kind of individuated selfhood to be possible, according to Jung, the heroic ego had to escape from the embrace of the Great Mother, who represents both the organic-bodily and the subconscious domain of human existence. Transpersonal psychologist Ken Wilber, however, argues that the emergence of the Father God amounted to a new level in humankind's understanding of divinity, a level consistent with and made possible by the Great Goddess-IO Wilber sees the Great Mother as representing early humanity's conception of "Mother Nature" as the now-bountiful, now-withholding source of life and death, who must be placated by ritual and blood sacrifice, while the Great Goddess represents the insight of a few into the transcendent Divine Unity that constitutes the creative source of all things. That is, the Great Goddess is the unifying principle of transcendence-in-immanence that makes even the Great Mother possible. Unlike the Great Mother, who demands ritual sacrifice, the Great Goddess requires not sacrifice of the body, but instead sacrifice or surrender of the separate self to the Divine Unity which is its source.



This mindset change solves patriarchy.


-answers deep ecology bad

Zimmerman ’90 [Michael E., professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. “DEEP ECOLOGY AND ECOFEMINISM: THE EMERGING DIALOGUE” http://www.dhushara.com/book/renewal/voices2/deep.htm#anchor2860962]

It appears then that the emergence of concern for the nonhuman world has coincided with the rediscovery of the Great Goddess in particular and of the Divine in general. In the quest to rectify the mistreatment of women, many feminists tended to neglect both the Earth and the Divine. To more and more women and men alike, however, it is becoming clear that the Divine cannot be identified with the patriarchal understanding of divinity. Moreover, we are beginning to realize that our capacity for caring for other human beings is somehow related to our capacity to appreciate the divinity at work in all of us. By appreciating the Divine God/dess, the origin and destiny of all things, we also appreciate more fully both our own bodies and the Earth upon which those bodies so depend. Surrendering to the Divine, we simultaneously surrender to and affirm our own embodiment. This Divine God/dess is simultaneously and paradoxically transcendent and immanent. Perhaps this concept of a post-patriarchal God/dess is necessary for women and men alike to develop a form of individuation that does not involve dissociation from the body, from nature, and from woman. This God/dess may then provide the understanding and compassion necessary for women and men to care for each other in a way that encourages us to care for other people and for the Earth as well. In this essay, I have attempted to develop a dialogue between deep ecology and ecofeminism. No doubt, masculine bias and phrasing color the writings of many deep ecologists, but a generous and compassionate interpretation of their work reveals an authentic concern to heal men and women and to heal the Earth that has been wounded by men and in some cases by women. Women and men alike have been distorted by the effects of patriarchy. What we need now is cooperation and trust, not animosity and suspicion, between deep ecologists and ecofeminists. We need each other in our common search for a way to be mature and complete human beings, so that the Earth can be freed from the burden of domination and exploitation.

Interrogating the beauty of nature is the ultimate form of connection to the environment.


Tøllefsen ’11 [Inga B., professor of philosophy at the University of Tromsø. “Ecofeminism, Religion and Nature in an Indian and Global Perspective.” Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review: Volume 2, Issue 1. http://uit.no/Content/276140/Ecofeminism_Inga_2011.pdf]

Ecofeminism does also have a spiritual side, encompassing many expressions of feminist concern with religion based on nature. Sandilands (1991:93 in Besthorn and McMillen 2002) describes spiritual ecofeminism as …the resacralization of Nature, of the divine feminine inherent in all living beings. It is seen as part of a process of reconnection, a reestablishment of ways of knowing and being in the world that have been lost in the history of patriarchal domination. The Goddess, in myriad forms, represents an ultimate vision of connectedness… The idea that women are, because of their womanhood, spiritually close to nature is central to ecofeminist thought, and is manifested in many forms of (nature) religion—both in the west and the east—often in the form of worshipping the inner goddess that resides in women. There are many examples from the west, often closely connected to the New Age movement, and which can be placed under the umbrella of neo-paganism. Some of these are Wicca and feminist witchcraft, the druid tradition and neo-shamanism (Tøllefsen 2007). In neo-pagan discourse key concepts encompass strong emotional relations to nature, as well as a baseline pagan ethic, emphasizing free will and an imperative of doing no harm. The concept of gods and goddesses is also very much present in ecofeminist spirituality, and can be understood in two ways. On one hand both male and female goddesses can be present in the belief system, bringing together masculinity and femininity without the oppression of the female in traditional religion, and in society. On the other hand nature can be personified as a goddess, as Mother Earth. Spiritual ecofeminists, in Starhawk’s words “[…] do not believe in the Goddess—we connect with her; through the moon, the stars, the ocean.” This shows that some sides of ecofeminism are deeply spiritual, concerned about the sacredness in nature and the holism of humanity and everything living. Especially women’s connection to nature is seen as positive and transformational, a source of strength and celebration. If humanity can reaffirm its bond to nature, the hierarchies of difference and degradation can ideally be broken.

Emotions over Reasons Module

Thus the alternative; we should reject the aff and the patriarchal mindset in favor of embracing emotions and caring in our attitude towards the environment


Kheel ’93 activist scholar

(Marti, “Wearing New Stories”, From Heroic to Holistic Ethics: The Ecofeminist Challenge, 26-28)



If the cult of masculinity has been modeled on the image of predation, the field of nature ethics has been modeled on that of protection. Both animal liberation and environmental ethics spring from a common defensive reaction to the willful aggression perpetrated upon the natural world. Animal liberationists concentrate much of their energies on protecting those animals reduced to the status of inert matter or machines--that is, animals in laboratories and factory farms. Environmental ethicists, by contrast, devote themselves primarily to protecting those parts of nature that are still "wild." But the underlying motive remains the same--namely, the urge to defend and protect. [17] Various modalities have been proposed for how the defense of nature might best be waged. Typically, nature ethicists have felt compelled to arm themselves with the force of philosophical theory in coming to nature's defense. Whereas patriarchal society has sought to destroy the natural world, nature ethicists have sought to place it under the protective wing of ethical theory. However, as Sarah Hoagland points out, predation and protection are twin aspects of the same world view: "Protection objectifies just as much as predation." [18] In their attempt to forge iron-clad theories to defend the natural world, nature ethicists have come to rely on the power and strength of a reasoned defense. Reason is enlisted as the new hero to fight on nature's behalf. In the past, humans (primarily men) have conceived of themselves as proprietors of the object-laden natural world. [19] Today, many nature ethicists conceive of themselves not as the owners of nature, but as the owners of value, which it is their prerogative to mete out with a theoretical sweep of their pens. Ethical deliberation on the value of nature is conceived more or less like a competitive sport. Thus, nature ethicists commonly view themselves as "judges" in a game that features competing values out of which a hierarchy must be formed. The outcome is that some must win and others must lose. If a part of nature is accorded high value (typically by being assigned a quality that human beings are said to possess, such as sentience, consciousness, rationality, autonomy), then it is allowed entrance into the world of "moral considerability." If, on the other hand, it scores low (typically by being judged devoid of human qualities), it is relegated to the realm of "objects" or "things," and seen as unworthy of "interests" or "rights." The conferral of value in ethical deliberation is conceived as the conferral of power. [20] "Inherent value" or "inherent worth" (the highest values) accrue to nature to the extent that nature can be rescued from the object world. [21] Much of the heated debate among nature ethicists occurs over what class of entities may rightfully be granted admittance to the subject realm. The presumption behind this conceptual scheme is that if an entity is not graced with the status of "subject," it will become the "object" of abuse. Both animal liberationists and environmental ethicists seek to curb the willful destruction of the natural world through another act of human will. Reason is, once again, elevated above the natural instincts and asked to control our aggressive wills. The same reason that was used to take value out of nature (through objectification and the imposition of hierarchy) is now asked to give it value once again. A sound ethic, according to this view, must transcend the realm of contingency and particularity, grounding itself not in our untrustworthy instincts, but rather in rationally derived principles and abstract rules. It must stand on its own as an autonomous construct, distinct from our personal inclinations and desires, which it is designed to control. Ethics is intended to operate much like a machine. Feelings are considered, at best, as irrelevant, and at worst, as hazardous intrusions that clog the "ethical machinery." Basing an argument on love or compassion is tantamount to having no argument at all. As Peter Singer boasts in his well-known Animal Liberation, nowhere in his book will readers find an appeal to emotion where it cannot be substantiated by rational argument. [22] In their attempt to forge iron-clad theories to defend the natural world, nature ethicists have, in many ways, come to replicate the aggressive or predatory conception of nature that they seek to oppose. They leave intact a Hobbesian world view in which nature is conceived as "red in tooth and claw," with self-interest as the only rule of human conduct. [23] The presumption is that only reason compels people to submit to sovereign rule--in this case, not that of a king, but that of ethical theory. Ethics, according to this world view, comes to replicate the same instrumental mentality that has characterized our interaction with the natural world. It is reduced to the status of a tool, designed to restrain what is perceived as an inherently aggressive will. Not all philosophers of nature have relied on axiological or value theory to rescue nature from her current plight. A number of writers, working in what some refer to as the field of ecophilosophy, [24] have sought to ground their philosophy not in the rational calculation of value, but rather in a transformed consciousness toward all of life. [25] Although they share with nature ethicists the urge to rescue nature from the object realm, they reject a "values in nature" philosophy in favor of grounding their philosophy in a particular phenomenological world view. Often the search for this transformed consciousness is described in terminology that borrows freely from the field of resource development. For example, we read of the search for the "conceptual resources" or the "foundations" of an environmental consciousness. [26] Although various religious and philosophical traditions have been proposed as suitable "resources" for the development of this consciousness, it is the images and metaphors of nature within these traditions that are the primary focus of concern. Some of the images and metaphors for nature that have been proffered as "fertile" grounds for the development of an environmental consciousness include that of an "interconnected web," "a community of living beings," an "organism," and an "expanded Self." The science of ecology has provided additional support for a world view that perceives all of life as an interconnected web or a single living being. The tendency of many ecophilosophers is to "mine" these conceptual systems for an ecological consciousness, rather than to examine their own feelings and emotions toward the natural world. [27] The underlying motive for the reconceptualization of the natural world is the urge to rescue nature from the aggression that is thought to ensue without these conceptual restraints. History has, in fact, shown that particular conceptions of nature have acted as a restraint against human aggression. As Carolyn Merchant points out: The image of the earth as a living organism and nurturing mother has historically served as a cultural constraint restricting the actions of human beings. One does not readily slay a mother, dig into her entrails for gold, or mutilate her body. . . . As long as the earth was considered to be alive and sensitive, it could be considered a breach of human ethical behavior to carry out destructive acts against it. [28] Many ecofeminists, inspired by the premodern conceptions of Gaia or "Mother Earth," have consciously sought to reclaim these images. [29] For most ecofeminists, however, this attempt to revive the image of Gaia is grounded not in systematic phenomenology but, rather, in a feeling of spiritual connection with the natural world. A female image of the earth simply seems to have resonance for many ecofeminists as a contrast to the patriarchal notion of a male sky god. [30] Yet the image of the earth as a living being is insufficient in and of itself to bring a halt to the current destruction of the natural world. The attempt by many ecophilosophers to graft a new image onto our current conception of nature fails to challenge the underlying structures and attitudes that have produced the image they seek to supplant. The underlying tendencies toward aggression that exist under patriarchy are thus left intact. The Gaia hypothesis, proposed by the scientist James Lovelock, illustrates this point. The hypothesis originally was hailed by ecophilosophers for reviving the notion of the earth as a living being. This initial enthusiasm, however, was subsequently tempered when Lovelock concluded that the earth, as a result of its self-regulating mechanisms, was perfectly capable of enduring humanity's insults. Lovelock boldly claimed, "It seems very unlikely that anything we do will threaten Gaia. . . . The damsel in distress [the environmentalist] expected to rescue appears as a buxom and robust man-eating mother." [31] With Lovelock's theory, the earth was "revived," but the underlying structures and attitudes that promote aggression were left unchallenged. Thus, although ecophilosophers have avoided some of the pitfalls of nature ethics, with its attendant notion of obligations and rights, they have often left unchallenged the deeper problem entailed in the notion of ethics as a form of restraint.

The only way to engage in effective holistic ethics is to disengage from patriarchal discourse, only then can we truly listen to and care for nature


Kheel ’93 activist scholar

(Marti, “Wearing New Stories”, From Heroic to Holistic Ethics: The Ecofeminist Challenge, 26-28)



In order to engage in holistic ethics, we must also disengage from patriarchal discourse. Patriarchal discourse creates dilemmas that it then invites us to resolve. Thus, animal experimenters typically invite us to answer the question, "Who would we save if we had to choose between our drowning daughter and a drowning dog?" The crisis scenario is designed to lead us to believe that only one life can be saved, and only at the other's expense. Disengaging from patriarchal discourse means that we must refuse to dignify these dualistic questions with a response. Even to consider such questions is to give support and validity to the patriarchal world view. [67] The best response to such questions is, perhaps, to pose a question of our own. We might ask why the child is ill to begin with. Was it due to the hormones found in the meat she was fed, or was it perhaps due to the consumption of drugs that had proved "safe" after testing on animals? And why was the proverbial dog touted by research scientists "drowning" to begin with? Had someone thrown the dog in the water (or, rather, the laboratory) in the pathetic belief that somehow, through the dog's death, a young child's life would be saved? And how and why did we develop a culture in which death is seen as a medical failure, rather than as a natural part of life? As we disengage from patriarchal discourse, we begin to hear larger and fuller stories. Hearing these bigger stories means learning to listen to nature. The voice of women and the voice of nature have been muted under patriarchy. Women and nature are considered objects under patriarchy, and objects do not speak, objects do not feel, and objects have no needs. Objects exist only to serve the needs of others. But despite our society's refusal to listen, nature has been increasingly communicating her needs to us. Nature is telling us in myriad ways that we cannot continue to poison her rivers, forests, and streams, that she is not invulnerable, and that the violence and abuse must be stopped. Nature is speaking to us. The question is whether we are willing or able to hear. [68] The notion of obligations, responsibilities, and rights is one of the tools used by heroic ethics. But genuine responsibility for nature begins with the root meaning of the word--"our capacity for response." Learning to respond to nature in caring ways is not an abstract exercise in reasoning. It is, above all, a form of psychic and emotional health. [69] Heroic ethics cannot manufacture health out of the void of abstraction. Psychic and emotional health cannot be manufactured at all. It can only be nurtured through the development of a favorable environment or context within which it can grow. The moral "climate" must be right. Ecofeminists and other nature writers have often proclaimed the importance of a "holistic world view." By "holism" they refer to the notion of the "interdependence of all of life." But interdependence is hardly an ideal in and of itself. A master and slave may be said to be interconnected, but clearly that is not the kind of relation that ecofeminists wish to promote. The quality of relation is more important than the fact that a relation of some kind exists. If our society is to regain a sense of psychic health, we must learn to attend to the quality of relations and interactions, not just the existence of relations in themselves. Thus, when hunters claim to promote the well-being of the "whole" by killing individual animals, or to "love" the animals that they kill, we must challenge their story. Our own notion of holistic ethics must contain a respect for the "whole" as well as individual beings.

We should use emotion over reason to solve our problems. If we always use rational to engage our problems we create a world where we focus on the masculine dominate trait.


Nhanenge 7 – Master of Arts at the development studies at the University of South Africa

(Jytte “Ecofeminism: Towards Integrating the Concerns of Women, Poor People and Nature into Development” http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/570/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1)


When a human being is examined from a holistic perspective, it becomes clear that people's actions are based on emotions rather than rationality. There is nothing like satisfaction of emotional needs that can motivate a person. Rationality alone is on the other hand a poor motivator for action. However, in the final analysis emotion and reason are two integrated parts of a whole human being. They should therefore not be seen as separate entities. Patriarchy, however, believes that reason and emotion can be completely detached. Based on this false assumption patriarchalism the masculine faculty of rationality. Superior reason is therefore used to suppress inferior emotion, and to rationalize away the disastrous consequences from application of an exaggerated masculine force. The result of such false beliefs is that political leaders and business people are pursuing economic profits due to their unsatisfied emotions. They develop a greedy approach to life, because they lack affect and have been forced to repress emotional needs. However, to save face they argue that it is rational and therefore good. In order to compensate for inadequate emotional satisfaction they pursuit maximization of economic profit, material acquisition, advanced technology and power. Such people find it rational to expand economic growth, arguing that it will alleviate poverty. However, in reality economic growth is not rational It is oppositely highly irrational since it is causing poverty for women, Others and nature. It is founded on the treasured patriarchal human characteristics of competition, maximization, greed, self-interest and individualism. Since these masculine, rational traits lack a dynamic tension with the complementary but opposite feminine emotional forces of cooperation, optimization, conservation, community, and social care they become exaggerated and destructive. This destruction is manifested in the four crises. To generate harmony inside a person, among people, and between people and nature the human mental function of reason must be balanced with the dualised, opposite, but complementary human emotion. Reintegrating the full human mental faculty is important in order for people to understand themselves. A human being will not succeeded in becoming a happy, healthy and harmonious person as long as society teaches that a person is superior, only when he or she is defined and act as being masculine. Masculinity is only one part of a person which cannot stand alone. It needs to be seen in a dynamic tensions with its complementary feminine part. Thus, a person is much more than only rational. If the emotional side is undermined, a person will never fully know him or herself. That would be a huge loss. It would prevent a person from becoming a balanced, whole human being, who can venture into the world with an open mind and deal appropriately with challenges that come his or her way. Oppositely, a fragmented, rational human being, cannot know him or herself. Lack of self-knowledge will lead the person to commit "stupid actions", the consequences of which will roll on forever and ever and lead to unhappiness, destruction and crises. It is therefore necessary that a person is defined as a whole human being. To function, a person needs to develop nationality as well as emotions. Only then will the person be able no deal with the challenges of the world, including amelioration of the current crises. Such a new, holistic anthropology must be pan of development studies. Development studies are a multi-disciplinary subject that includes the economic, political and social aspects of people's realities. However, the mental or psychological reality of people is lacking, when it should be an integrated part of the studies. Only few development authors have included the mental (emotional) aspect of the people they study in their research. Robert Chambers was perhaps one of the first to make psychology a natural part of his work. However, also E. F. Schumacher focused on the full human being and his feelings in the development context. Since then more development academics have joined, but seen from a subjective point of view, most authors in development studies still focus on masculine, quantitative issues and objects, rather than on a quality of life for real people. Many for example still argue that "political will" can solve development problems. These people consequently lack the insight that this concept does not exist in human psychology. Politicians are human beings who are motivated to act according to their individual emotions, rather than due to their political rationality. lf they have suppressed their emotions, they will not be able to feel empathy or care for women, Others and nature. They consequently will not be motivated to alleviate poverty, even though they may have plenty of political will. It is for this reason political leaders decide that their own economic advantage is more important than Ending the rape and genocide of women and Others in the Darfur region. It is also for this reason that Leaders in the World Bank and managers of multinational corporations find it economical to place polluting activities in the Third World. When women, Others and nature are harmed or killed by the poison, compensation is cheap and profit is high. Since emotions is the dualised other and empathy is part of these inferior feminine feelings, showing care and concern for women, others and nature is no what a superior, rational, masculine individual does. Instead, he rationalizes the human suffering away: He may argue that the dualised other is lazy or stupid and should therefore be seen as a lower leveled being that has little economic to lose and who is happy with some handouts. He may see women and Others as being passive and hence responsible for their own misery. He may believe that had these others only done as the Ups, then they would not belong to the Downs. Women and Others are therefore seen as being inferior ones who deserve subordination. Thus he falls into the trap psychologists call for "blaming the victim". That is easier than to examine oneself. Conclusively, as shown throughout the dissertation, rationality cannot prevent domination, exploitation and violence of women, Others and nature. Scientific rationality is in fact promoting these violent trends. When we understand ourselves enough to realize that, it is our human feelings that drive us rather than our rationality then we can reconcile our fragmented selves and find peace. When we get in touch with our emotions then we have a good chance to develop as human beings and become respectable, caring, balanced and happy persons. Such a person would not permit that children live in poverty, he would also not abuse other adults, neither would he rape women nor kill anyone. He would also not destroy nature. Due to his inner balance, he would not need to commit such atrocities. Hence, when we include the full spectre of our human faculty, we may be able to develop caring relationships between men and women, adults and children, white and blacks, humans and nature and we would find that rational. The outcome of knowing ourselves and pursuing inner balance may in the end, result in a world without crises and "development problems". Ecofeminism is a struggle for survival of people, nature and the future generations of both categories. In order to succeed in this a new anthropology is required. It must be one, which can define human beings as a whole person, hence integrating the masculine reason with the feminine emotion. When we are fully integrated people, we would not need to bring up our children by the traditional means of reward and punishment. The abuses against children need to stop. It is inhuman and cruel. Only when we get in contact with our own emotions will we be able to understand the suffering of these children, and end it. Caring for children means that they can grow up, becoming caring adults. This is highly likely leading to a non-dominant, non-violent world. This is another challenge for development studies. It could play an important role in promoting a new anthropology that includes emotion and ensures that children are cared for. As Robert Chambers already has pointed out, improving childrearing in a development context, is essential in order to promote a future generation of people that will care about women, Others and nature. Conclusively psychology deserves to play a central role in development studies.

Indigenous Knowledge Module

Thus the alternative, we should reject the affirmative in favor of the ecofeminist model of plural knowledges and the use of indigenous knowledge in eco-ethical decisions


Nhanenge 7 – Master of Arts at the development studies at the University of South Africa

(Jytte “Ecofeminism: Towards Integrating the Concerns of Women, Poor People and Nature into Development” http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/570/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1)



8.3.3. Perceiving indigenous knowledges as relevant is needed: Knowledge is about knowing oneself, other people, nature and things in one's surroundings. It is therefore not an activity that belongs to experts. In spite of that, modern science was created as a monopoly that belongs to the patriarchy. Being a measure of control science was introduced as a rational, universal and objective system of knowledge that presents the truth about reality. Thus, science excluded the experiences and knowledges of women, poor people and indigenous peoples. These people's perception of life was considered the lowest kind of knowledge. Hence dualism and its domination of women, Others and nature included their knowledges. Apart from being a means created to control and dominate, science was also meant as a tool to exploit nature for economic profit of patriarchy. In this way, science, with its reductionist focus on quantities, its persistent abuse of nature, and its exclusion of the experience of women and Others, has lead to the condition that created the four crises. Since resolving the global crises requires improving the quality of life for women, Others and nature, science will be inadequate as a tool. Instead the perceptions, experiences and knowledges of women, Others and nature are essential. Ecofeminism has challenged the exclusion of ecology and feminism from a scientific understanding life. It has instead suggested alternative, holistic ways of thinking and knowing. The aim is to dismantle the domination of women, Others and nature and to see reality from an ecological and feminist point of view. Hence, people's experiences, and their feelings about what happens in the process, should be the foundation of knowledge. According to this alternative perception, knowledge relates to a particular perspective that is situational, contextual, subjective and affectional. It is interdependent with people’s environments and based on a historical process related to a specific culture. Such situated knowledges are based on diverse experiences, with no universal or single view. It is relevant knowledges that will help women, Others and nature to produce, reproduce and sustain their quality of life. It is therefore a kind of knowledge, which will alleviate poverty and regenerate nature. This is knowledge to which outsiders normally do not have access, acquiring it therefore demands a humble attitude in learning from local people. This is not easy and quite an opposite scenario from the usual situation where the scientifically educated outsider teaches local peoples the absolute truth about their indigenous reality. An ecofeminist model of plural knowledges is different from the singular reality promoted by the modern world-view. This means that situated knowledges are threatening the monopoly of science, its disciplines, its technology and its institutions. If local knowledges are recognized, then science cannot anymore be considered the carrier of absolute truth. Instead, it becomes only one perspective of various "truths". Such a move would be part of dismantling the power-base of patriarchy. However, many people have been socialised into believing in the superiority of science and the universality of scientific institutions, change towards a plural perception of reality will therefore be painful and come hard. This is where development studies come in. In order to alleviate poverty and regenerate natural health, it is necessary that the quality of life of women, Others and nature is improved. Since this requires inclusion of indigenous knowledges, development studies must support it. Such support may include researches into and documentations of how indigenous knowledges can increase the quality of life for women, Others and nature. If studies would clearly show its effectiveness in poverty alleviation, they may spread awareness of the importance of indigenous knowledges. This may convince some flexible development agencies about its relevance and persuade open-minded development workers to take local people's experiences seriously. Such awareness will develop slowly, but it is a step further towards the goal of including in development, reality as perceived from the perspectives of women, Others and nature. Or said differently: being aware of the importance indigenous knowledges play in poverty alleviation means that any development activity that would overlook the experiences of feminism and ecology must be considered a reductionist, masculine and dominant enterprise, the outcome of which will only reinforce the four crises. Conclusively indigenous knowledges play an important role in improving the quality of life for women, Others and nature. It is therefore an appropriate challenge for development studies to promote that realities, experiences and knowledges of women, traditional peoples, and poor people, together with ecological knowledge are integrated in any development endeavour as being both legitimate and relevant knowledges.

Indigenous environmental practices enable the use of holistic environmental ethics


Coward, Brunk, and Power-Antweiler ’07 Professors at the Centre for Studies in Religion and Society at the University of Victoria

(Harold, Conrad, and Melanie, “Ecosystem Justice as an Ethical Basis for Fisheries Management”, American Fisheries Society Symposium 49, http://fisheriessociety.org/proofs/wfc/power-antweiler.pdf, 589-590)



The Haida Approach: The Haida writers Russ Jones and Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson in their essay y “Applying Haida Ethics in Today’s Fishery” (Jones and Williams-Davidson 2000) argue that the Haida fishing communities on Canada’s west coast followed a traditional approach that fostered ecosystem justice in the fishery. According to Jones and Williams-Davidson, “First Nations around the world demonstrate interwoven cultural, spiritual, and ecological values derived from spiritual principles embedded in nature” ” (Jones and Williams-Davidson 2000:102), and the Haida approach to the fishery is based on a spiritual relationship with their natural environment and all its elements, including fish, birds, land animals, creeks, and places. The Haida place animals at an equal and sometimes higher level than humans. This contrasts strongly with western European policy and law, which is human-centered and values the fish in terms of their use by humans. The Haida believe that all animate and inanimate beings have a spirit, which translates into holistic ethical approach to the utilization of the resources of the land and sea. The creatures of the oceans are regarded as Ocean People, and each creature is thought to play an important part in keeping the rest of nature alive. Interactions between the Haida and the Ocean People are for sustenance or to play an important part in keeping the rest of nature alive. Interactions between the Haida and the Ocean People are for sustenance or spiritual reasons. Thus, fish are seen as making an important sacrifice to keep humans alive. Thus, “a fisher would talk respectfully to the halibut, referring to it as a k’aagaay, or elder, while asking it to bite his hook” (Jones and Williams-Davidson 2000:103). Two important principles of Haida ethics are respect and reciprocity. Respect is taught for oneself, others, and the environment that keeps us alive. This is manifested in a variety of ways. Offerings are made to honor the spirits of the fish that we intend to kill. All fish that are killed must be treated respectfully, which means it must not be wasted (all parts must be used). Sports fishing, where a fish is played (caught and then released), is offensive to the Haida (Jones and Williams-Davidson 2000). Food must be handled with care. Ceremonies are held, such as a gathering at the mouth of the Yakoun River to welcome back the first sockeye salmon (Jones and Williams-Davidson 2000). Haida individuals or clans also follow a stewardship or management responsibility with regard to fish that seeks to actualize a holistic or ecosystem relationship with nature. Clans traditionally controlled fishery access within their territory; on behalf of the clan, the chief was the steward of the resource and had the responsibility to see that it was not overfished. Another guiding principle for Haida conduct is a sacred quest for balance that is embodied in the Haida proverb “The world is as sharp as the edge of a knife,” a story in which a man, responsibility to see that it was not overfished. Another guiding principle for Haida conduct proud of walking along a narrow board just above the ground, nevertheless slipped and fatally fell (Jones and Williams-Davidson 2000). This speaks to the narrow relationship not only between life and death, but also between humans and nature, analogous to the two side of a knife, and it teaches the importance of finding balance in all of our activities, including stewardship of the fishery. Current Haida management of fisheries incorporates traditional spiritual values with moder scientific techniques in management and decision making, For example, the Haida fishery on the Copper River on Haida Gwaii takes place over a short period of time in April and May. The river is the traditional territory of the Gitksan clan, who owned the single trap on the river-others had to request permissions to fish there. Today, all Haida living in Skidegate can fish the river. The fishery is managed as follows. “The target escapement is 10,000 spawners to the river, and the Haida Fisheries Program operates a continuing fence and makes recommendations on fisheries openings. Public meetings are called each year to appointment a management committee to make decisions on opening…The public meeting involves all interested people and includes a mix of elders, men and women. Decisions are made by consensus but may be delegated in season to the management committee. Fence counts and catches are followed closely by everyone and reported in the local village newsletter. If an opening is called, fishing effort might consist of up to 50 nets that take annual catches averaging 3,300 sockeye…The Copper River fishery is an example of a carefully managed fishery that uses a public community consensus process and traditional and scientific knowledge to make decisions” (Jones and Williams-Davidson 2000:109). By following Haida values, which treat the fish and people as spiritual beings that are parts of a holistic interdependent environment, the Haida follow a model of ecosystem justice in their approach to the fishery. Their community-based decision making is one example of how a comanagement model based on the ethical assumptions of ecosystem justice can work effectively.

1   2   3   4   5   6


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page