labrys, études féministes/ estudos feministas
julho/ 2016- junho 2017 /juillet 2016-juin 2017

 

 

What’s still useful in ecofeminism

Maria Antonietta La Torre

 

Abstract

Ecofeminism is outdated if it comes to replace “man-centrism” by a sort of “gynocentrism”, as some scholars seem to do so sometimes. But if it is understood as a methodology to analyze environmental issue from a different point of view, i.e. from a larger justice perspective, it may provide something interesting, especially in terms of geopolitical and global justice: it is a reflective thought on unfair resources distribution, paying attention to gender issues, and in general it adopts a more solidarity-like point of view; but that is still largely unfinished.

Key-words: ecofeminism, methodology, environnement

 

1. Introduction

Environmental ethics is one of the most controversial areas, but also one of the most interesting, of bioethics. It is controversial for two reasons. Initially, it didn’t seem possible that the interest in nature could be motivated by reasons other than profit for humanity. Later, some more radical versions of environmentalism aroused suspicions and fear the idea to downsize the role of humanity on the planet, and thus reduce its aspirations to well-being. In some respects, ecofeminism can be considered one of the most radical versions of environmental ethics. In fact, it proposes an ecological revolution that overturned the hierarchy on the planet.

Ethics is the reflection on the criteria to categorize the standards of conduct that should govern relations between individuals endowed with reason and conscience, and therefore able to assume a mutual responsibility. This would exclude the possibility of taking responsibility for nature, which is not an “otherness” in this regard. Environmental ethics, instead, proposes an extension of this sphere, supporting the existence of ecological duties, variously declined, as it assigns a value to nature. What genre is this value? Something holds an intrinsic value if it has, so to speak, value in itself, regardless  the use that you can make (for example independently of the appreciation from someone, or the profit that can be derived from its use or its sale); therefore, you can also define it “inherent value”.

On the contrary, something has an extrinsic or instrumental value or derived, if its value depends precisely on its use or its utilities, actual or potential. The philosophical project for an “ethics for the environment” has given rise to different positions, and often conflicting, through a series of oppositions, e.g. biocentrism / anthropocentrism, deep / shallow and, precisely, intrinsic / instrumental. Although the ecofeminism criticizes these dichotomies, as we will see, it basically proposes similar dichotomies. It is an area of ecological thinking that connects the care of nature to female emancipation and ascribes responsibility for the environmental crisis to male hegemony. Noting that the exploitation of nature has characterized human history the same way as that of the women, ecofeminism founded on a supposed special link of these, because potentially mothers, with nature, to transform a relationship until now founded on power. It should, therefore, give up the hierarchical way of thinking, typically male, which is articulated through a constant reminder to the categories of force, competition and oppression, to adopt a reticular thinking, careful, on the contrary, the relations and, thus, learn to take care of nature.

The ability to care would be, in short, a typically feminine vocation, which opposes the Promethean (male) attitude to control the world. From the book Le Féminisme ou la mort by Françoise d'Eaubonne, (d’Eaubonne, 1974) which by the way was the first to use the term “ecofeminism”, it has developed so an ecofeminist philosophy that assigns women the task to rebuild an authentic relationship, not “appropriating”, with nature, by overcoming the desire for control. D’Eaubonne argues that male control of both the production of goods that female sexuality has led to both crisis, environmental and of overproduction and overpopulation. In short, the liability of ecological disasters should be ascribed to male supremacy, while through the revaluation of the reproductive function it’s possible to propose solidarity among all living beings. (Radford Ruether, 2004. Kheel, 2008. Quarta, 2006. Stephens, 2013)

“Connections between “woman” and “nature” exist because women are part of “nature”, as are all humans, and the suppression and hatred of nature is played out in specific ways on women’s bodies, activities, and conceptual frameworks. These connections are relevant because both women and nature are categorically devalued, with their distinct and similar qualities”(Cuomo, 1998: 6).

Therefore the emancipation of nature from male domination must, gradually proceed  with the empowerment of women, to replace the progress, as well as hitherto understood, and even rationality, developed since the birth of modern science, which have legitimized the looting of nature, an ethical and caring society. This is why sometimes ecofeminism is defined “third wave of feminism” (Kramarae, 2000: 434). But ecofeminism goes further, imagining a sort of new “gynocentric” humanism that moves from the reproductive function; women can control it, and this would slow population growth, the primary cause of environmental damage.

2. Philosophical roots

d'Eaubonne proposed to build a thought both feminist and ecologist. In fact, in her opinion, the cultural model that enables man to master the woman is the same one that makes him feel entitled to dominate nature. In both cases, moreover, according to this researcher, we reach the same conclusion: an overproduction, agricultural or demographic, which i is dangerous for the equilibrium of the planet Earth (Gandon, 2014). First, then, ecofeminism criticizes the hierarchical and dualistic approach that would be typical of Western philosophical thought and Western science, born of the contrast between the self and the other, where the other, that is the nature, which is a mere object, is exposed to the possibility of the domain. Second, ecofeminism sees not simply a resemblance, but a parallel between the subjugation of women and the exploitation of nature, both objects of desire to dominate and control that characterizes Western societies. As an alternative to these, it aims the approach of interdependence between all living beings, which passes through the recognition of the value of each, and thus its emancipation from all exploitations.

If we want to outline a fairly varied theoretical framework, we can say that ecofeminism takes two directions: one towards a critique of the technological and rational culture of progress, with its scientific background, which were behind the attack on nature, and, along with it, the weaker parties (women, children, disadvantaged countries, etc.), and a proactive position of solidarity and participatory approach, which could emerge from the overcoming of the dualistic tradition and antinomian view of reality, typical of the traditional philosophical thought (Sarti, 2006: 195). The main object of criticism is anyway the dualistic way of thinking, which would be typical of rationalist Western culture, the one, namely, that opposes the subject and object, mind and body, culture and nature; this is considered the origin of the manipulative attitude, subjugation of women, and, likewise, of the nature and other living beings. On the contrary, ecofeminism promotes a holistic view, which not only aims to overcome the hierarchical vision, but also appeals to intuitive skills, or more generally to non-rational instances in philosophical speculation and in moral evaluation. (Kheel, 2014: 165-83)

Feminism applied to the environmental issue claims the need to take into account the emotions, if not as an alternative, at least to work alongside to rationality, because only by understanding deep union with the whole totality, you can actually arrive to recognize the need to take care of it. In short,  women's ability to feel and to “sympathize” provide a different and alternative key to understand and approach  the environment and other living beings, and might be able to offer a successful model of relationship with nature. In the now classic In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Gilligan, 1982), even Carol Gilligan noted the women's attitude to worry about and take responsibility for each other and, more generally, for the otherness as a whole. In other words, it is believed to find a way of relating to the world that isn’t founded on rules and universal principles, but on the “feminist spirituality”, which does not “injures” or damages the nature, as it is moved by love, and the ability to “feel” a direct involvement with and in nature.

3.  The Origins

Some scholars have considered Rachel Carson, the well-known author of Silent Spring, acknowledged among the founders of the environmental movement, the pioneer of ecofeminism, too, though she has never suggested or developed such a perspective (Vakooh, 2012); it comes in a clear distortion of the truth, only legitimized by its belonging to the female sex (Mattson, 2008). Other scholars see, even a forerunner in Simone de Beauvoir, with her criticism of the logic of patriarchy (Gandon, 2014). But the first conference on ecofeminism, Women and Life on Earth: a Conference on ecofeminism in the Eighties, was held much later, in 1980 in Amherst, Massachusetts, and from it originated the ecofeminist movement; the first anthology, Reclaim the Earth: Women Speak Out for Life on Earth, took place in 1983 (Caldecott , Leland, 1983); finally, the use of the term “ecofeminism” became widespread only after a new conference, held at the University of Southern California in 1987, entitled Ecofeminist Perspectives: Culture, Nature, Theory. We can't date it back to long before but we know that the most representative are Merchant and Plumwood. Carolyn Merchant locates in the emergence of the mechanistic view of the world, developed together the rise of modern science, the loss of ability to perceive ourselves as part of the organic whole.

Therefore the “death of nature” would start with the technological progress (Merchant, 1980). Val Plumwood criticizes the “hyperseparations”, that create hierarchies and prevent us from seeing the links, and leads to deprive value the “weak” parts of the dichotomies (women, nature, animals, etc.), authorizing their utilization, giving to the use a both social and moral legitimacy (Plumwood, 1993). Ecofeminism, furthermore, sometimes recalls the ancient cults of Mother Earth to suggest a return to a holistic attitude of respect for the natural world. Maternity would make women better suited to understand the voice of nature. The transcendent and male deity of the monotheistic religions has interrupted this privileged relationship: it deprived the nature of his “soul” and transformed it into an object. Therefore, we have to return to the “mother”. In some versions of ecofeminism we are seeing a personification of nature, an essentialist and substantially mythological vision.

The best known representatives of ecofeminism also perform two different analysis of the ecological crisis. Merchant has reconstructed the misogyny of the entire Western culture, and of science in particular, which would impose a unique system of thought; this has become dominant in a short time, and was based on the dichotomy about what had been said previously (Merchant, 1980). King claims that human society was actually born from the domination of women by men, and that from this original form of control all the other hierarchies are derived. So the exploitation of nature is a manifestation and an extension of women's oppression; it depends on the assimilation of nature with the female gender (King, 1989).

Shiva has also made its contribution to this vision, when she described the “maldevelopment”, that is the wrong development, as male responsibility, because the model of progress so far achieved is a man’s responsibility; the relationship of women with nature, in contrast, is marked by a different relational sensitivity, able to defend biodiversity; for example, Indian farmers do so when they protect traditional crops, even by taking from a small piece of land a variety of useful things to the survival of the entire family. For Shiva, however, the goal is to encourage the return to subsistence farming, replacing the pursuit of merely quantitative growth, and the recognition of the value of use of the goods, other than the monetary value (Shiva, 1988. Mies, Shiva, 1993). Shiva, therefore, declines ecofeminism as a reading tool of the problems of developing countries, in which, moreover, the gender issue still has a long way to go.

Anthropocentrism, as we know, is the main subject of criticism of the ecological movement, as it is held responsible for environmental damage and lack of foresight, with which mankind has exploited the natural resources. As shown, the anti-anthropocentrism of ecofeminism is, in effect, an anti-androcentrism, near the deep ecology positions (although not all supporters of this way of thinking will recognize themselves in this classification); it manifests itself as a kind of biotic egalitarianism, according to which all the elements on the planet are entitled to the same protection, with a view to ecological justice. In my opinion, the proposed assumption of a non-anthropocentric perspective suggests a target which is in fact, impossible; it is unclear how humanity could judge anything from a position that isn’t his own, adopting, it would seem, the point of view of a kind of divinity, which would have the ability to place itself above the parties, at a neutral location, we could say, over the interests of all the elements involved. But this claim is even more difficult if that position is considered the sole prerogative and privilege of women.

4. Links with other ethical and political theories

We could say that ecofeminism is interlaced with other philosophical and political theories. For example, the spiritualistic ecofeminism presents a clear link with the deep ecology (Sessions, 1996). The deep ecology movement adopts a biocentric perspective, which recognizes the value of all the natural elements, so that the evaluation of human conduct is traced back to a horizon that is beyond human. Its characteristics were defined in the famous article by Arne Naess, as opposed to shallow ecology:

“I. The Shallow Ecology movement: Fight against pollution and resource depletion. Central objective: the health and affluence of people in the developed countries. II. The Deep Ecology movement: Rejection of the man-in-environment image in favor the relational, total-field image. “Organisms as knots in the biospherical net or field of intrinsic relations” (Naess, 1973: 96).

Some scholars would not share this approach, but in my opinion there are some similarities between the two theories. Both denounce the abstract universalism, and both are animated by a regret for ancient times (for example for matriarchal ages), that sometimes appears anachronistic. They suggest replacing scientific laws with respect for Mother Earth cycles, and a sort of anti-scientific reverence for the miracles of life.

Secondly we can find affinities with eco-socialism, which combines the criticism of the senseless exploitation of the environment to that of the developing countries, and denounces ecological alienation which is added to that social. The environmental issue thus becomes a matter of social justice. Ecofeminism in this version is interpreted as a strategy for empowerment of subordinate groups, which aren’t only women, but all disadvantaged groups, including non-human beings (Cuomo, 1998). “Material ecofeminists focus on the material conditions of women’s lives locating the source of this twin domination in patriarchal capitalism” (Sydee, 2001:1). However ecofeminism doesn’t offer an original interpretation of the critique of capitalism, compared to that proposed by traditional political-sociological analysis (Odih, 2014).

Finally, in my opinion, we find special affinity with the ethics of care. In fact, it proposes an extension of the moral responsibility, that renewal or exceeds some of the traditional parameters of ethics of rights; useful in this respect  is the category of “care”, i.e. an attitude that demands respect for the character and sensitivity, and the true nature, of the other. That is no longer viewed as a mere object: ethics of care brings out the disposition to com-part with other, regardless of earnings or benefits that may be derived from this relationship. This means overcoming the evaluation systems that reduce the individual value to a tool to achieve other purposes. The ethics of care enhances a kind of relationship, like parental love, which asks first of all (first, then, any utilitarian concern) respect for the way of being and the peculiar nature of the being we deal with, and invites to a provision referring to a concern about his fate.

 Therefore it proposes precisely the overcoming of the manipulative position we talked about, that is, of the dualistic and objectifying model, typical of scientific thought. For example, unlike the Kantian moral philosophy model, Lévinas defends an ethic of solidarity against the ethics of rights, as opposed to simple justice and selfless (Honneth, 1995). The so-called “theory of difference” means the attitude of “care” as a characteristic sign of some sort of “being female”, which would oppose the Promethean attitude of indiscriminate domination of nature; the latter is interpreted as a consequence of the adoption of a “male” thinking (typical of science), which is not “neutral” (as it claims to be), but expresses a unique way of looking at things, highly ideological and harbinger, for example, the environmental consequences that we all know; it is inspired by the ideals of control and possession, and the indiscriminate exploitation of nature. Therefore it is proposed to find ways to relate to the surrounding world so connoted “female”. In fact, women would have a specific and unique ability to care for others. Similarly, some ecofeminist scholars claim emotional involvement, rather than an acting motivated by reasons and rational arguments, and defend a female care ethics, which would allow a relational approach of caring. Thus, in my view, it is likely to revive largely overcome stereotypes, according to which the women would join in non-rational forms of relatedness, which looks like the misogyny of large part of Western cultural tradition. The connection between caring and “female” is to continue the moral marginalization of women and the (no longer acceptable) identification of their nature with motherhood and the feelings associated with that activity, reinforcing the idea of his alleged inability of abstraction and generalization (Toronto, 1995). In any case, the desire to use the model of ethics of care to deal with the environmental issue is supported by several ecofeminists (Curtin, 1996).

Ecofeminism logical development seems to be adhering to vegetarianism and animalism, because it sees a direct link between objectification, consumption and exploitation (Adams, 1996). Therefore ecofeminism cannot but contribute to the debate about animal rights (Gaarder, 1972). The change in the relationship with nature should indeed cover all living beings; solidarity taught by the attitude of care needs to be extended to other weak elements. The criticism of the dualism leads to deny even the instrumental contrast between men and animals, and the “liberation” of non-humans. The Western dietary practices reflect the hierarchical “masculine” classification and should be replaced with the caring attitude, which prohibits the imposition of suffering on other living beings. A lack of empathy also characterizes the environmental plans proposed by a “male” politics: the eco-feminists criticize the male way of promoting environmental protection, as in the overall vision (holistic) they neglect the defense of the individual parts (e.g. individual animal).

In short, we can say that ecofeminism collects multiple instances trying to link them to the feminist struggle. It is probably due to the fact that it is a militant movement, which wants to contribute to the visibility of the ecological issue, rather than a structured and accomplished theory (Bourg, 2015). And this is the reason because, for example, the eco-philosopher Chris Cuomo calls herself an “ecological feminist”, rather than an ecofeminist; within ecofeminism, in fact, are usually included many and diversified attempts to find a link between feminism and environmentalism from very different (and sometimes confused) points of views (Cuomo, 1998): the result is a variety of perspectives that does not contribute to the full dignity of its theoretical vision.

“There are no clear boundaries between the thought and practice of ecofeminism and those of other movements originating in the late twentieth century that deal with issues of nonviolence, social justice, health, and the natural world. Moreover, ecofeminism, as an outgrowth of feminist, environmental, and postcolonial movements, is not immune to many of the political divisions and intellectual debates found in these movements” (Kramarae, 2000: 434).

5.Perspectives

This brief statement is certainly approximate, because we do not have enough space to give an account of the variety of proposals for an ecofeminist theory of society: from egalitarianism to the theory of difference, from  gender criticism to the condemnation of liberalism. However, ecofeminism often offers, in my view, a stereotypical and outdated female and male model. Ecofeminism may even be harmful to the cause of gender equality, when it appeals to a kind of “essence” of women, which would bring the women closest to nature, especially when it refers, for example, to the primitive cults of Mother Earth (Gandon, 2014). The desire to return to an immediate relationship with nature looks like a sort of religion, that wants to place at the center the “soul” of nature. But in doing so, ecofeminists do not offer persuasive arguments in the only language that policy makers can understand, that of reason, or at least of “good reasons”.

“The demands of “deep” green theorists and activists cannot be accommodated within contemporary theories of liberal politics and social justice” (Brennan, Lo, 2016).

Moreover, the historical reconstruction proposed by some ecofeminists, who imagine a prehistoric age in which women lived in harmony with nature, before the advent of male domination, is quite controversial. The charges to modern science and technology seem to suggest that “before” the relationship was different: in fact, women were burned at stake as witches, and seen as little more than animals in much of medieval society, and nature was equally exploited since they were allowed the available techniques; it’s not the technology that has transformed the social perspective: it has only provided better tools to obtain what men also previously wanted to get.

Furthermore, the fundamental and shared anti-dualistic instance seems to contradict a model that still opposes women's attitudes (to care, mothering, etc.), and male or patriarchal ones. Finally, both the definition of nature and women are the result of cultural, social, historical constructions; on the contrary in many ecofeminist debates both concepts appear pre-defined in a fixed way. In my opinion, it is rather difficult to identify a female point of view in an ideal-typical way, or defend a female Weltanschauung, the same way that there is no male Weltanschauung in an absolute or unique sense, contrary to the argument  (  e.g. Kheel (Kheel, 2008). That is why one of the main criticisms of the ecofeminist movement is that of essentialism: nature, women, and also race identity seem essentialist constructs, defined by biological, universal, and ultimately a-historical elements. Probably some difficulties to appreciate the ecofeminist contribution to environmentalism result from fragmentation and discontinuity of it. It is a certainly radical, but not always consistent cultural and social movement. Sturgeon, for example, in his interesting study, declares to reconstruct its genesis, rather than its history, just because it is not a unified movement, and, indeed, is not without its contradictions. Ecofeminism “claims that all women are naturally environmentalist”, or that there are

“[…] different ways of knowing generated from women’s, or workers’, or people of color’s standpoints”, but “these identities appear and disappear, shift and change, when viewed in movement contexts ." (Sturgeon, 2016: 9).

Therefore, ecofeminism is outdated if it comes to replace  “man-centrism” by a sort of “gynocentrism”, as some scholars seem to do sometimes; but if it is seen as a method to analyze the environmental issue from a different point of view, i.e. from a larger justice perspective, it may provide something interesting, especially in terms of geopolitical and global justice, it is a reflective thought on unfair resources distribution, paying attention to gender issues, and in general it adopts a more solidarity-like point of view. But it is still largely unfinished. The theoretical position of Vandana Shiva, for example, helps to cast a differently look at the relationship with Mother Earth, to bring into light the unequal and unjust appropriation of resources. In these more general terms one can avoid the reiteration of stereotypes and, above all, the revival of a dualism in the female/male form, and use a really ecological approach; this means considering each element as part of the whole. Indeed, “Geopolitical” ecofeminism challenges technology for having negative consequences, for example, on climate change and consequent reduction of agricultural production, but it connects these problems to social equity and the development of poor countries, which pay the greatest consequences of the reckless exploitation of resources (Samb, 2016). It is, in short, of the disciplinary area called “women, environment, and development”, and connected with the analysis and criticism of the process of globalization.

 

Biography:

Maria Antonietta La Torre is a philosopher and bioethicist, and she mainly deals with applied ethics. She is environmental sociology and ethics for tourism professor, and a member of the Italian Institute of Bioethics board. Her main publications are: La questione ambientale tra sostenibilità, responsabilità e crescita economica; Questioni di etica d’impresa. Oltre l’homo oeconomicus; L'etica nella terza Critica. Il "giudizio" kantiano e le recenti interpretazioni francesi; Bioetica e multiculturalismo: verso una bioetnoetica; Il cibo e l’altro. Orizzonti etici della sostenibilità alimentare.

 

 

Bibliography

   Adams, Carol J. 1996. Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals, in Warren, Karen J. (ed.) Ecological Feminist Philosophies, Bloomington-Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

      Adams, Carol J. and Gruen, Lori. 2014. Ecofeminism: Feminist Intersections with Other Animals and the Earth, London: Bloomsbury.

       Andreozzi, Matteo. (ed.) 2012. Etiche dell’ambiente. Voci e prospettive, Milano: LED.

      Angelini, Aurelio. 2008. Il futuro di Gaia. Roma: Armando.

      Bourg, Dominique and Papaux, Alain. 2015. Dictionaire de la pensée écologique. Paris: PUF.

     Brennan, Andrew and Lo, Yeuk-Sze. 2016. “Environmental Ethics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

     Caldecott, Leonie and Leland, Stephanie. (ed.) 1983. Reclaim the Earth: Women Speak Out for Life on Earth, London: The Women’s Press Lts.

      Carson, Rachel. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

      Cuomo, Chris J. 1998. Feminism and ecological communities, London and New York: Routledge.

     Curtin, Deane. 1996. Toward An Ecological Ethic of Care, in Warren, Karen J. (ed.) Ecological Feminist Philosophies, Bloomington-Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

     d’Eaubonne, Françoise. 1974. Le Féminisme ou la Mort. Paris: Pierre Horay.

      Gaarder, Emily. 1972. Women and the Animal Rights Movement. New Brunswick, New Jersey-Longon: Rutger University Press.

      Gandon, Anne-Line. 2014. “Il y a le ciel, le soleil … et la mère. Quand la nature vient au secours de la Mère et du Père”, Emulations, n. 14 (hiver). (Special issue “Femmes et écologie”, coordonné par Delphine Masset et Éric Hitier).

      Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

      Honneth, Axel. 1995. “L'altro della giustizia. Habermas e la sfida etica del postmoderno”, Fenomenologia e società, N. 1.

      Kheel, Marti. 2008. Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective. Washington DC: Rowman & Littlefield.

">      Kheel, Marti. 2014. La liberazione della natura. Una questione circolare, in Faralli, Carla and  Andreozzi, Matteo. (ed.) Donne, ambiente e animali non-umani. Riflessioni bioetiche al femminile. Milano: LED, 165-183.

       King, Ynestra. 1989. “The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology”, in Plant, Judith (ed.) Healing the Wounds, Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

        Kramarae, Cheris and Spender, Dale. 2000. Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women. Global Women’s Issues and Knowledge, New York: Routledge.

       Mattson, Bree B. 2008. Interconnections: Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Emergence of Ecofeminism, New York: Sarah Lawrence College.

       Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. New York: HarperCollins.

      Mies, Maria and Shiva, Vandana. 1993. Ecofeminism. London: Zed.

       Naess, Arne. 1973. “The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement”, Inquiry, Vol. 16, n. 1.

      Odih, Pamela. 2014. Watersheds in Marxist Ecofeminism, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

      Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, London-New York: Routledge.

      Radford Ruether, Rosemary.  2004. Integrating Ecofeminism, Globalization, and World Religions. Washington: Rowman & Littlefield.

       Samb, Rokhaya. 2016. L’Écoféminisme dans la géopolitique: femmes et development durable, Paris: L’Harmattan.

        Sarti, Maria Alberta. 2006. Ecofemminismo e natura, in  Quarta, Cosimo (ed.) Una nuova etica per l’ambiente. Bari: Dedalo.

       Sessions, Robert. 1996. Deep Ecology versus Ecofeminism: Healthy Differences or Incompatible Philosophies?, in Warren, Karen J. (ed.) Ecological Feminist Philosophies, Bloomington-Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

      Shiva, Vandana. 1988. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development,London: Zed.

       Sturgeon, Noël. 2016. Ecofeminist Natures. Race, Gender, Feminist Theory and Political Action, New York: Routledge.

       Sydee, Jasmin and Beder, Sharon. 2001. “Ecofeminism and Globalisation: A Critical Appraisal”, Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol. 7, n. 2.   

        Stephens, Anne. 2013. Eco-Feminism and Systems Thinking. London: Routledge.

        Tronto, Joan C. 1995. Moral Boundaries. London-New York: Routledge.

         Vakoch, Douglas A. 2012. Feminist Ecocriticism: Environment, Women, and Literature. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.

 

labrys, études féministes/ estudos feministas
julho/ 2016- junho 2017 /juillet 2016-juin 2017