Their critique assumes western women globally which ignores multiple factors of identity which only helps the rich west women
Gaard 10 – English Prof @ University of Wisconsin-River Falls
(Greta, Strategies for a Cross-Cultural Ecofeminist Literary Criticism, Ecozone, p 49-50)
As Susin Moller Okin's volume, Is Multiculturalism Bad For Women? points out, under the rhetoric of multiculturalism, appeals for respecting social practices that require women's subordination have been advanced, and such appeals have been used strategically to block feminist critiques across cultures. But sexism is a historic part of most cultures—not a unique feature of a particular culture, dominant or subordinate, West or East, first-world or two-thirds world—and it must be uprooted if women are to enjoy true freedom and equality within that culture. In developing cross-cultural feminist and ecofeminist literary critiques, it may be possible and even necessary to advance some minimum general statements about women's conditions, needs and rights globally. Transnational human rights organizations from Oxfam, ENTICEF and Amnesty International, to Women Living Under Muslim Laws, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, argue that oppression will not be legitimated with appeals to culture or tradition. These generalizations about women must take into consideration intra-cultural differences of class, region (urban/rural), ethnicity, and sexuality. Particularly in the contemporary novels I selected for comparative reading, "globalization" often means westernization, and such westernization can be perceived simultaneously as a form of cultural, economic, technological, ecological, and political that improves the lives of the middle and upper classes while bypassing or even harming the lives of poor, working class, or impoverished Chinese and Taiwanese Because the process of globalization is currently in motion, contemporary literary texts provide snapshots of characters and cultures in transition, creating plots that retain traditional values and beliefs about family, ancestors, spirituality, sexuality, and nature at the same time as they articulate westem values and practices of sexuality, economics, and technology as taken on by the upwardly-mobile classes.
Perm solves best – Eco-pragmatism allows for concrete change and theoretical approaches
Butler 1 – Law Professor @ William and Mary
(Lynda, "Book Review of Eco-Pragmatism: Making Sensible Environmental Decisions in an Uncertain World," Faculty Publications, p 407)
Much of the debate over environmental protection has been presented as a choice between conflicting alternatives: a choice, for example, between environ- mental quality and economic efficiency, between command and control regulation and private market approaches, and between endangered species and jobs. What often is missing from this theoretical and normative debate is a middle University of Minnesota professor Daniel Farber brings the middle ground into the debate in his book Eco-Pragmatism: Making Sensible Environmental Decisions in an Uncertain world. As the title suggests. Farber's Eco-Pragmatism takes a moderate approach to resolving the core issues involved in making hard environmental decisions. Instead of joining the battle between competing holistic theories being fought in the environmental arena, Farber advocates the adoption of a pragmatic approach to environmental problem solving. Basing his approach on legal pragmatism, Farber explains that a pragmatic approach draws on the herence of many sources, rather than on a single unified foundation" and uses theories as "tools, not ends in themselves" (p. 10). Much of the book is devoted to making the case for moderate, pragmatic approach. Farber uses key problems involved in making hard environmental decisions as his organizational tools. Those problems include deciding how to make trade-offs between conflicting values, deciding how to deal with the time dimension of environmental problems, and deciding how to respond to uncertainty about risk. Farber examines the problem Of making by comparing the two principal methods for making social decisions: politics and the market. According to Farber, the current debate over these methods has become bogged down in some "very deep philosophical waters" (p. 40). A more helpful approach, in Farber% view, would be to think of economic concepts as tools for resolving disputes Over resource allocation. As Farber explains, both individual preferences and political choices should be important to environmental decision making. Because Of the strong commitment to environmental protection already expressed through the political process, decision makers should begin with an environmental baseline, allowing environmental harm "only when avoiding it is infeasible or grossly disproportionate in cost" (p. 68). Farber proposes limiting the role of economic methods like cost-benefit analysis to assisting rather than controlling the decision-making process, in hopes that economic tools will act as a check on unreasonable regulation without overtaking the decision-making process.
Pragmatism and feminism are intrinsically linked.
McKenna 01 (Erin McKenna, Erin McKenna is a Professor of Philosophy, former Chair of Philosophy and former chair of Women's Studies. She specializes in feminist theory and American Pragmatism, focusing on issues of social and political philosophy, November 13, 2001, The task of Utopia: A pragmatist and feminist perspective, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers)
The deﬁnition and scope of utopia are much debated. The full scope of this debate is not the focus of this work, though.‘ I use Lyman Tower Sargents deﬁnition of “a non-existent society described in considerable detail” to support my selection of the feminist novels discussed in this book. I am, however, also concerned with the social and political theory that informs, and is represented by, such ﬁctional societies. These theoretical perspectives are utopian in the sense that they present dreams of an alternate, and hopefully in some respects better, way of founding and organizing society.’ “Utopia is about how we would live and what kind of a world we would live in if we could do just that. . . . Sometimes utopia embodies more than an image of what the good life would be and becomes a claim about what it could and should be."‘°,I will discuss three models of utopia-end-state, anarchist, and process—from both the theoretical perspective of what could and should be and the ﬁctional perspective of a non-existent society. In other words, I will try to merge theory and (potential) practice." Both pragmatist and feminist theory reject the notion of theory and practice as separate. They understand theory as arising out of and guided by practice and practice as arising out of and guided by theory. This dialectical interchange energizes and enlivens both how we think and how we live. While the societies discussed here are imaginary potential societies, they do show people living out complex theoretical perspectives. This merging of theory and practice is one of the ways in which this study is feminist. Further, to provide the reader with a common focus and to assist with the clarity of the comparison of the three models of utopia, I have chosen to discuss only feminist utopian novels which seek to address the problems male violence (in various forms) pose for women and the world. These novels bring to life, while simultaneously critiquing, a variety of feminist perspectives. This leads to the difficulty of deﬁning feminism. As with utopia, there is no single deﬁnition of what is feminist and a full discussion of this debate is not the focus of this work." I use a basic definition: the belief that the subordination of women is wrong, that the absence of women's perspectives distorts and limits traditional social and political theory, and that addressing male bias in both theory and practice will result in a society more inclusive of diversity.” The pragmatist and feminist perspective will, specifically, reject the traditional dualisms of academic philosophy which include male/female, mind/body, reason/emotion, objective/subjective, and theory! practice. For both pragmatists and feminists, experience is essential to forming theory and knowledge is inﬂuenced by one’s situatedness. I refer to the process model of utopia as a pragmatist and feminist model in order to highlight these commonalities and to demonstrate the ways in which pragmatism is inherently feminist and the ways feminism, in all of its diversity, can be informed and modiﬁed by pragmatism."
Deep Ecology Turn
Ecofeminism according deep ecology is anthropocentric and as a result creates the degradation of the environment, any act via the K erodes values.
Opara 11(Chioma Opara, Opara is a professor and Coordinator of English, Rivers State University of Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.With specialization in Comparative Literature and Gender, her research interests include women and cultural studies, November 2011, Bridging Gaps, Dismantling Walls: A Case for Integrative Global Dialogue, Volume 2)
Biodiversity, a facet of ecofeminism is therefore a negation of Cartesian anthropocentric postulate that only beings with souls should merit one’s critical attention. Rene Descartes propounded the non-status theory which subordinates creatures without souls. This has generated a lot of debates among modern philosophers and theorists who contend that this non-status theory is the matrix of environmental degradation. Deep ecology, an aspect of environmental theory has been criticized within the ecofeminist movement as being insensitive to human and animal pain in the, biotic community‟ of nature.14 Indian ecofeminist, Vandana Shiva, observes of the third world environment, “the violence of nature, which seems intrinsic to the dominant development model, is also associated with violence to women who depend on nature for drawing sustenance for themselves, their families, their societies”. Given the unique socio-culturally prescribed role of the third world woman, any act of violence on nature erodes her spirit and vitality.
Ecofeminism's focus on solving human interconnection is inherently anthropocentric, and is the root cause of all environmental harms.
Fox ‘4 [Warwick. November 22nd, 2004 "The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and its Parallels." Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology 3rd Edition. Micheal E. Zimmerman, J. Baird Callicott, George Sessions, Karen J. Warren, John Clark. Prentice Hall: New Jersey. 2001. p218-235. http://somethingaboutenvironmentalethics.blogspot.com/2004/11/deep-ecology-vs-ecofeminism.html]
Deep ecologists and ecofeminists are often at odds. Ecofeminists have a few concerns about deep ecology. First, that deep ecology names anthropocentrism as the root cause of environmental problems¶ Many deep ecologists would agree that men, whites, capitalists, and/or Westerners have been most to blame for environmental problems. However, they do not believe that the gender should be more focused on than the others. Also, they believe that to focus on gender, or any human interconnection, over environmental issues is passively anthropocentric. Ecofeminists believe that once androcentrism is remedied, that environmental problems will be solved in turn. Deep ecologists believe that no human interconnection should be put before solving the environmental problems themselves.
Racism Alt Cause
Feminism isn’t the question or has the correlation between ecology, the question is racism and how it wasn’t until this was revealed the ecological movement became apparent.
Taylor 97 (Dorceta E., PhD Professor of Sociology, Program director for Minority Environmental Leadership development initiative" 1997 Women of Color, Environmental Justice, and Ecofeminism" in Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature pp.38-81)
People of color have brought the issues of environmental racism, environmental equity, environmental justice, environmental blackmail, and toxic terrorism to the forefront of the environmental debate in recent year. Until people of color made these issues commonplace in environmental circles, the terms, the concepts they embody, and the questions arising from them were not used, explored, or asked by traditional, well-established environmental groups, deep ecologists, social ecologists, bioregionalists, ecofeminists, or Greens. Environmental activists (even the more radical ones and those who were critical of traditional environmental activism) ignored or paid little attention to the processes, practices, and policies that led to grave inequities, to charges of environmental racism, and to a call for environmental justice. For a long time environmentalists did not recognize that certain issues and activities had disproportionate negative impacts on communities of color; if they were aware of the impacts, they paid no attention to them. This occurred because many in the environmental movement failed to perceive and define issues affecting communities of color as environmental issues, did not consider people of color to be part of the constituency they served, or did not see themselves engaging in environmental dialogues and struggles with such communities. If and when they considered people of color, these people were an afterthought deserving only marginal consideration. Many environmentalists were too concerned with other issues to move issues affecting primarily people of color to the top of their agendas.
To first understand the negative connections of our society and the environment we must trace ourselves back to the problem of racism.
Merchant 10 (Carolyn Merchant, PhD History of Science University of Wisconsin at Madison, Professor of Environmental History, Philosophy, and Ethics, June 19, 2010, Environmental history: Shades of Darkness, Vol 8 num 3) K.A.
IN THE HIDDEN WOUND, published in 1989, environmentalist Wendell Berry writes that ‘the psychic wound of racism has resulted inevitably in wounds in the land, the country itself.’ When he began writing the book in 1968 during the civil rights movement, he tells us, ‘I was trying to establish the outlines of an understanding of myself, in regard to what was fated to be the continuing crisis of my life, the crisis of racial awareness.” Berry's book is an effort to come to terms with the environmental history of race as reﬂected in his family's history as slaveholders, in his own childhood on a Kentucky farm in the segregated South, and in his adult life as a conservationist and environmentalist.‘ in recent years, environmental historians too have reflected on the crisis of racial awareness for the field and collectively have begun the process of writing an environmental history of race. The negative connections between wilderness and race, cities and race, toxics and race, and their reversal in environmental justice have been explored by numerous scholars who have analyzed the ideology and practice of environmental racism. Throughout the country many courses now include multicultural perspectives on the environment.‘ We have learned important new ways to think about the relationship between race and environmental history. These include the following perspectives: - Slavery and soil degradation are interlinked systems of exploitation, and deep-seated connections exist between the enslavement of human bodies and the enslavement of the land. Blacks resisted that enslavement in complex ways that maintained African culture and created unique African American ways of living on the land.‘ - Native Americans were removed from the lands they had managed for centuries, not only during settlement. as is well known, but during the creation of the national parks and national forests. Indians resisted these moves in an effort to maintain autonomy and access to resources.‘ - American lndians and African Americans perceived wilderness in ways that differed markedly from those of white Americans! - A ‘coincidental order of injustice”-in Jeffrey Romm's phrase—reigned in post-Civil War America as emancipated blacks in the South were expected to pay for land with wages at the same time that free lands taken from Indians were being promoted to whites via the Homestead Act and other land acts.‘ - African Americans bore the brunt of early forms of environmental pollution and disease as whites fled urban areas to the new streetcar suburbs. Black neighborhoods became toxic dumps and black bodies became toxic sites. Out of such experiences arose African American environmental activism in the Progressive Bra and the environmental justice movement of the late twentieth century.’ All of this work is an auspicious beginning to compiling an environmental history of race. But we need to do much more in integrating multicultural history and environmental justice into our courses and frameworks. We especially need more research on the roles of African Americans in the southern and western U.S. environment and in early urbanization and more research on Asian and Hispanic practices and perceptions of nature.‘ I hope to contribute to this growing body of literature by looking at views held about American Indians and African Americans in environmental history. if an environmental justice perspective is to permeate the field of environmental history. we need to be aware of the racial ideas of the contributions of the founders of the conservation and environmental movements. I shall argue that whiteness and blackness were redefined environmentally in ways that reinforced institutional racism.