Global Justice and Planetary Health - Essay Example

Ecofeminism: Towards Global Justice and Planetary Health Greta Gaard and Lori Gruens Ecofeminism: Towards Global Justice and Planetary Health beginsby discussing the historical ramifications of the connection between ecology and feminism, linking them to a 1974 academic conference in Berkeley, California, and claiming the movement reached full fruition in the 1980s. The authors identify four questions that they argue guides ecofeminist investigations: “what are the problems that ecofeminism has addressed; how did these problems arise; why should these problems concern feminist; and why might ecofeminism offer the best framework for analyzing them (Pg. 276)?” It is these questions that inform the extent of the authors’ essay. The article argues that some of the main problems that such investigations need to address form a number of pressing environmental concerns. Notably, the United States overconsumption of natural resources, and the global effects of pollution as exemplified in degraded water supplies and the rapid diminishment of forests. It also cites sources that argue part of the world’s starvation problem can be linked to overpopulation. The authors’ argue that the ecofeminist approach is the best paradigmatic expression of the problem, as the problems of the changing world “stem from the mutually reinforcing impression of humans and of the natural world (Pg. 277).” They also argue that’s it’s not possible to discuss women’s rights without reference to “environmental degradation.” One of the chief examples they give is that while nature and man were once inextricably linked, they contend that beginning with Descartes the two began to take on a formal shift to reflect opposition systems of characterization. While these ideas sound superficially sound, the idea that Descartes was the first to imagine the distinction between man and nature seems short sighted. It’s well documented that Montaigne considered the social ramifications of education by analyzing the pupil’s relation to social forms of acculturation vs. more highly naturalistic ones. Indeed, it was Rousseau who adopted Montaigne’s ideas to “radical” acclaim when formulating his noble savage concept. Furthermore, Emerson’s infusion of Transcendental ideas of the all-consuming essence of nature was also viewed as revolutionary, as well as cult-like among 19th century New Englanders. Ultimately, it seems underpinning a philosophical division between nature and humans to a single cultural epoch is guilty of obscurantism, and distorts the argument to advance feminist politics. The article goes on to discuss the ways that environmental negligence can be linked to feminist oppression. The authors argue that since the majority culture co-opts the majority of the world’s resources in ways that are deleterious to the environment, the victimized minority, which includes women, blacks, and children, are the direct recipients of this oppression. The article then goes on to advance a specious argument for the preeminence of women as the greatest recipients of this environmental oppression. The essence of one of the arguments is that while women in third world countries carry out a substantial portion of the daily tasks of procuring water and food, these tasks are not counted towards the nations GDP. It’s only when pollution intervenes in this subsistence pattern and males have to intervene as agents of construction and correction in cleaning up the mess, does the labor count towards GDP. Even if one ignores the gross generalizations of characterizing women’s work as the procurement of water and food and men’s work as substantiated forms of construction and development, the necessary supportive interdependence of men and women would seemingly negate such characterizations. That is, it men’s role in these GDP recorded forms of labor is oftentimes to the great benefit of women, and it is only through the men’s labor and exploitation of natural resources that women are able to subsist. It seems a highly self-exculpating proposition to link all forms of environmental degradation to men, and insinuate women are merely oppressed bystanders of masculine subjugation. In other regards concerning the unequal distribution of natural resources engendering broader forms of social oppression, the article makes a number of convincing points. Statistical data, such as how the United State only constitutes 5% of the world, but utilizes 1/3rd of its natural resources, offers a convincing explanation for wide-spread social oppression in regions such as Latin America. This is perhaps the most salient argument the essay contains. Namely, that there is a direct connection that can be made between the overabundance and gluttonous appropriation of natural resources by highly industrialized nations, and the corresponding social, political, and economic oppression of less-developed countries. Another example is that it if the United States were to give up land devoted livestock and began producing solely grain it would help feed up to 400 million more people. This is perhaps the most convincing argument one has heard towards world-wide vegetarianism or conversely, as some livestock specialists might argue, for increased and more productive means of factory farming. However, it’s difficult to completely agree with the article that these hunger shortages are a result of neglectful environmental policies, greed, and over-population, as it purports a latent liberal extremist agenda. An equally strong argument could be made that detailed the failure of Latin America and Third World Nations to match Western economic standards, has less to do with conscious oppression and more to do with evolutionary position of these countries infrastructure. To adopt a slightly Marxist formulation – perhaps perverted Marxism – the failure of these countries to economically match more industrialized nations is that they have no yet developed the infrastructure and logistic support to make food production highly efficient. In this regard, it’s not the social oppression as embodied in ecofeminist theory that best characterizes the world’s economic stratification, but the relatively innocuous reason that high food production requires high infrastructure, which only emerges through gradual internal progress. The article states, “At this rate the Third-World will perpetually be indentured servants to industrialized nations (Pg. 281).” It’s only when this oppression is said to be characteristic of masculine domination over feminine structural roles, rather that “the oppression inherent in the international market can best be understood from an ecofeminist perspective” that the argument forfeits its role as substantial political commentary for over-generalized, gender-war fare (Pg. 281). Another interesting comparison the article draws between feminism and the environment concerns the means by which factory farming processes are adopted and abused. The article draws a comparison between animals and women, and argues there is a structural similarity between the injection of growth hormones into cows, and similar fertility procedures in women. While this might be a viable comparison, it continues to one-sidedly assume there is a secret oppressive male majority that controls what elements will go into women’s bodies without their consent or research participation. It also ignores the fact that men are oftentimes subjected to similar medical procedures. For instance, the article could just as easily discuss the modes of oppression that men face when receiving a vasectomy, and extend the concept to the neutering of dogs. In this regard, it is the male that is a victim of oppressive females who seek to control and determine the male body by subjecting them to vasectomy’s that mirror the subjugation of pets. While this seems an absurd formulation, it is exactly this logic that underlines the essay and a great amount of “ecofeminist” literature. Read More