Ecological Feminist Philosophies:

An Overview of the Issues

KAREN J. WARREN
The past few decades have wi t nessed an enormous i nt erest i n t he womens
movement and the ecology (or environmental) movement. Many feminists
have argued t hat t he goal s of t hese t wo movement s are mut ual l y rei nforci ng and
ultimately involve the development of worldvietis and practices which are not
based on model s of domi nat i on. One of t he fi rst femi ni st s t o do so was Rosemary
Radford Ruether who, in 1975, wrote in New WomaniNew Earth:
Women must see t hat t here can be no l i berat i on for t hem and
no sol ut i on t o t he ecol ogi cal cri si s wi t hi n a soci et y whose funda+
ment al model of rel at i onshi ps cont i nues t o be one ofdomi nat i on.
They must unite the demands of the womens movement with
t hose of t he ecol ogi cal movement t o envi si on a radi cal reshapi ng
of t he basi c soci oeconomi c rel at i ons and t he underl yi ng val ues of
this [modern industrial] society. (204)
Subsequent feminist writings by animal rights activists and ecological and
ot her envi ronment al femi ni st s have rei nforced Ruet hers basi c poi nt : There are
important connections between feminism and environmentalism, an apprecia-
t i on of whi ch i s essent i al for t he success of t he womens and ecol ogi cal move-
ment s.
Y
Just what are some of the connections between feminism and the environ-
ment that have attracted the attention of ecological feminist philosophers?
How has recogni t i on of t hese connect i ons affect ed and i nformed t he phi l osophi -
cal perspect i ves of femi ni sm and envIronmental i ssues?
I n t hi s i nt r oduct i on 1 at t empt t o answer t hese quest i ons by doi ng t hr ee t hi ngs.
Fi rst , I i dent i fy some oPthe connection&tween t he domi nat i on of women and
t he domi nat i on ofnature whi ch have been suggest ed i n t he schol arl y ecofemi ni st
philosophical literature. S&&d,-l identify &%nge of ecological (eco) feminist
. . -.J.Y
X Ecological Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the Issues
phi l osophi cal posi t i ons whi ch have emerged, part i cul arl y i n t he fi el d of envlron-
mental ethics, in an :u tempt to provide :I throrctical framework for underatand-
ing the connections hrcwccn fcminisru and the cnvironmcnr. Third, I suggest
what the philosophical significance of rhis cmcrging lilcmturc is, not only for
femi ni sm and envi ronment al phi l osophy but for mai nst ream phi l osophy as wel l .
While no attempt is made to provide an exhaustive account, hopefully this
overview highlights some of the relevant issues and acquaints the newcomer
with the nature and range of philosophical positions on feminism and the
environment, or ecological feminism.
A CHARACTERI ZATI ON OF EWWINISM
Just as t here i s no
t
one feminism, there is neither one ecofeminism nor one
feminist philosophy. E ological feminism is the name of a variety of different
femi ni st perspect i ves 011 t he nat ure of rhe connect i ons bet ween t he domi nat i on
of women (and other oppressed humails) and the domination of nature. Eco-
logical feminist philosophy is the name of a diversity of philosophical ap-
proaclles to the variety of different connections between feminism and the
environment. These different perspectives reflect not only different feminist
perspectives (e.g., liberal, traditional Marxist, radical, and socialist feminism);
t hey al so refl ect di fferent underst andi ngs of t he nat ure, and sol ut i on t o, pressi ng
environmental problems (see Warren 1987). So, it is an open question of how
many, which, rind on Wl\ ill grounds nny of the proposed ecological feminist
phi l osophi es are properl y i dent i fi ed as ecokminist posi t i ons. What one t akes t o
be a genui ne ecofemi ni st phi l osophi cal posi t i on wi l l de e n d l argel y on bow one
concept ual i zes bot h femi ni sm and ecol ogi cal femi ni sm.
s
What al l ecofemi ni st phi l osophers do hol d i n common, however, i s t he vi ew
that there are important connections between the domination of women (and
other human suhc,rdinatcs) and the domination of nature and that a failure to
i
recognize these connect i ons resul t s i n in:ldcqunte femi ni sms, environtncnlillisln,
nd envi ronment al phi l osophy. What t he nat ure of t hese al l eged connect i ons i s
and whi ch, i f any, are accurat e descri pt i ons of t he nat ure and root sources of t he
t wi n domi nat i ons of women and nat ure i s l argel y what ecofemi ni st phi l osophers
debate.
!%ME ALLEGED CONNECTIONS BETWEEN FEMINISM AND THE ENVIRONMPNT
There are i\ t lcast ciglit sorts of conncctiotis which ccologicnl Itimini:,ls have
i dent i fi ed as i mport ant t o underst andi ng t he connect i ons bet ween femi ni sm and
the environmrnt. No attempt is made here to critically assess the claims made
about these connections. Furthermore, these eight categories are not to be
viewed as competing or mutually exclusive. Indeed, many of the important
claims made about one kind of connection (e.g., conceptual and theoretical)
Ecofogicd Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the Issues
xi
often depend on Insights gleaned from others (e.g., historical and empirical).
The aim in this section is simply to present for consideration the various
elemrnts of the overall feminism and the environment picture.
1. Hi st ori cal and cat.&. One sort of al l eged connect i on bet ween femi ni sm and
the environment discussed by ecological feminist philosophers is primarily
historical. When historical data are used to generate theories concerning the
sources of t he t wi n domi nat i ons of women and nat ure, i t i s al so causal . In fact ,
some feminists characterize ecofeminism in terms of just such historical and
causal cl ai ms: Ecofemi ni sm i s a recent devel opment i n femi ni st t hought whi ch
argues that the current global environmental crisis is a predictable outcome of
patrlarchal culture (Salleh 1988, 138, n.1). What are some of these historical
and causal cl ai ms?
Some ecofeminists (e.g., Spretnak 1990; Reisler 1988) trace the historical
and causal connections to prototypical patterns of domination begun with the
i nvasi on of Indo-European soci et i es by nomadi c t ri bes from Eurasi a about 4500
B.C. (Lahar 1991). Riane Eisler describes the time before these invmsions as II
matrifocal, matrilineal, peaceful agrarian era. Others (e.g., Griffin 1978;
Plumwood 1991; Ruether 1975) focus on the historical role plnyed by rational-
i sm and i mport ant concept ual dualisms (di scussed at 2, bel ow) i n cl assi cal Greek
philosophy. Still other feminists (e.g., Merchant 1980,1989; Shiva 1988) focus
on cul t ural and sci ent i fi c changes t hat occurred duri ng t he sci ent i fi c revol ut i on
and sanct i oned t he expl oi t at i on of nat ure, unchecked commerci al and i ndust ri al
expansion, and the subordination of women.
What prompt s and expl ai ns t hese al l eged hi st ori cal and causal connect i ons
bet ween t he domi nat i on of women and t he domi nat i on of nat ure? What el se was
in place to permit and sanction thest: twin dominations? To answer these
quest i ons, ecofemi ni st phi l osophers have t urned t o t he concept ual props whi ch
keep the historical dominations of women and nature in place.
2. Concept ual . Many ecofemi ni st s and ecologlcal feminist phi l osopher s (e,g,,
Cheney 1987; Gray 1981; Griffin 1978; Y. King 1981, 1983, 1989a; Merchant
1980, 1990; Plumwood 1986, 1991; Ruether 1975; Salleh 1984; Warren 1987,
1988, 1990 [reprinted in this volume]) have argued that, ultimately, historical
and causal l i nks bet ween t he domi nat i ons of women and of nat ure are l ocat ed i n
conceptual structures of domination and in the way women and nature have
been concept ual i zed, part i cul arl y i n t he west ern i nt el l ect ual t radi t i on. Four such
concept ual l i nks have been suggest ed.
One account locates the concep\ual basis of the twin dominations of women
and nat ure i n val ue dualists, i . e. , di sj unct i ve pai rs i n whi ch t hedi sj unct s are seen
as oppositional (rat&r than as comphentary) and exclusive (rather than as
inclusive), and value hierarchies, i.e., perceptions of diversity organized by a
spatial Up-Down metaphck which attril,hSe higher value (status, prestige) to
. . -_ ..J
that which is higher (Up) (seeGray 1981; Griffin 1978, 1989a; Y. King 1981,
1983, 1990; Ruether 1975; Zimmerman 1987). Frequently cited examples of
these hierarchically organized value dualisms include reason/emotion, mind/
body, cul t ure/ nat ure, humanlnaturc, and III:IIJWOII~;~ di chot omi es. These t heo-
ri st s argue t hat what ever i s (hi st ori cal l y) associ at ed wi t h emot i on, body, natuie,
and women i s regarded as i nferi or t o t hat whi ch i s (hi st ori cal l y) associ at ed wi t h
reason, mind, culture, human (i.e., male), and men. One role of feminism and
environmental ethics, then, is to expose atrtl dismantle these dualisms and to
rethink and reconceive those mainstay philosophical notions (e.g., reason,
rationality, knowleclge, objectivity, the self as knower and moral agent) which
rely on them.
A second, rel at ed account expands on t he fi rst by housi ng t he val ue dual i st i c,
value hierarchical chinking (described above) in larger, oppressive patriarchal
conceptual frameworks-ones undergirding all social isms of domination, e.g.,
racism, classism, heterosexism, sexism as well as naturism, or the unjustified
domination of nonhuman nature (see Warren 1987, 1988, 1990). A conceptual
framework is a socially constructed set of basic beliefs, values, attitudes, and
assumptions that shape d reflect how one views oneself aid others. It is
oppressi ve when i t expl ai ns, j ust i fi es, ad mai nt ai ns r el at i onshi ps of domi nat i on
and subordination. An oppressive conceptual framework is patriarchal when it
explains, justifies, and maintains the subordination of women by men. Oppres-
si ve and pat ri archal concept ual frameworks are charact eri zed not onl y by val ue
dual i sms and val ue hierarchies, hut al so by power-over concept i ons of power
and rel at i onshi ps ~~fdominntic~n (Warren 1991) and by a l ogi c of lIoll~i~i;ltio~i,
i.e., a structure of iWgulnent;l~ion which justifies subordination on the grounds
that superiority justifies subodination (Warren 1987, 1990). On this view, it is
oppressive and patriarchal conceptual frameworks (and the behaviors which
they give rise to) which sanction, maintain, and perpetuate the twin domina-
tions of women and nature. Revealing :lnd overcoming oppressive and patriar-
chat conceptual frameworks as they :Ire manifest in theories and practices
regarding women and nature are important tasks of feminism, rnvironmental-
ism, and environmental ethics.
A third account locates the conceptual basis in sex-gender differences,
part i cul arl y i n di fferent i at ed personal i t y format i on or consci ousness (see Cheney
1987; Gray 1981; Caldecott and Leland 1983; Salleh 1984). The claim is that
female bodily experiences (e.g., of reproduction and childrearing), not female
biology per se situate women differently with respect to nature than men. This
difference is revealed in a different consciousness in women than men; it is
rootedconceptually ilr paradigms th;\l are uncritically oriented to the dominant
western masculine forms of experiencing the world: the analytic, non-related,
delightfully called objective or scientific approaches (Salleh 1988, 130)-
just the sort of value dualisms which are claimed (above) to separate and
inferiorize what is historically female-gender identified. These socio-psycho-
I
XIII
l ogi cal fact ors provi de a concept ual l i nk i nsofar as t hey are embedded i n di fferent
concept ual i zat i on st ruct ures and st rat egi es (di fferent ways of knowi ng), copi ng
st rat egi es, and ways of rel at i ng t o nat ure for women and men. A goal of femi ni sm
and envi ronment al et hi cs, t hen, i s co devel op gender-sensi t i ve language, t heor y,
and practices which do not further the exploitative experiences and habits of
dissociated, male-gender identified culture toward women and nature.
A fourth account draws on some of the historical connections mentioned
earlier (at 1). It locates the conceptual link between feminism and the environ-
ment in the metaphors and models of mechanistic science which began during
both the Enlightenment and pre-Enlightenment period (see Merchant 1980;
Easlea 1981). The claim is that prior to the seventeenth century, nature was
concei ved on an organi c model as a benevol ent femal e, a nurt uri ng mot her; aft er
the scientific revolution, nature was conceived on a mechanistic model as a
(mere) machine, inert, dead. On both models, nature was female. The claim is
that the move from the organic to the lnechaniscic model conceptually permic-
t ed and et hi cal l y j ust i fi ed t he expl oi t at i on of t he (femal e) eart h by removi ng t he
sorts of barriers to such treatment chat the metaphor of nature as a living
organi sm previ ousl y prevent ed. The chal l enge t o femi ni st s, envi ronment al i st s,
and envi ronment al et hi ci st s, t hen, i s t o overcome met aphors and model s whi ch
feminize nature and naturalize wotnen to the mutual detriment of both nature
and women.
3. Ern[piricnl and experi ent i al . Many ecofemi ni scs and ecol ogi cal femi ni st phi -
losophers have documented empirical evidence linking feminism and the envi-
ronment . Some poi nt t o vari ous heal t h and ri sk fact ors caused by t he presence of
l ow-l evel radi at i on, pest i ci des, toxics, and ot her pol l ut ant s and borne di spropor-
tionately by women and children (see Caldecott and Leland 1983; Diamond
1990; Kheel 1989; Philipose 1989). Ot hers provi de dat a toshow t hat Fi r st Wor l d
development policies foster practices regarding food, forests, and water which
directly contribute to the inability of women to provide adequately for them-
/
selvesand their families (e.g., Mics 1986; Salleh 1990; Shiva 1988; Warren 1988,
1989). Feminist animal-rights scholars argue that factory farming, animal ex-
perimentation, hunting, and meateating are tied to patriarchal concepts and
practices (Adams 1990,199l; Collard with Contrucci 1988; Kheel 1985,1987-
88). Appeal s t o such empi ri cal dat a are i nt ended t o document t he very real , fel t ,
lived connections between the dominations of women and nature and to
motivate the need for feminist critical analysis of environmental concerns.
Some ecofeminists and ecofeminist philosophers cite experiential connec-
tions which honor and celebrate important cultural and spiritual ties of wotnen
and indigenous peoples to the earth (see Allen 1986, 1990; Bagby 1990;
Doubiago 1990; LaChapeJle 1978; Wonla~qfPourer 1988). Indeed, documenting
such connect i ons and maki ng t hem i nt egral t o t he proj ect of femi ni sm and t he
environment is often heralbed,as one of thegpst,imporcant contributions to
. _=;+.
XIV Ecokqical Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the Issues
the creation of liberating, life-affirming, and post-patriarchal wcjrldviews and
earth-based spirituality or theology (see Christ 1990; McDaniels 1989, 1990;
Ructhcr 1989;Sptl*tll:lk 1989;1, 1990; %rh:lwk 1989, 1990). Applc*ci;lring thcsc
connections and undcrst anding the polit-its of womens spiritualit y is viewed as
an important aspect of feminism, environmentalism, and environlurntal ethics.
4. Epistemological. The various historical, conceptual, and eml>irical/experi-
ential connections which have been claimed to link feminism aml the environ-
ment (discussed at l-3, above) have also motivated the neetl for different
feminist environmentnl cpistcmctlogics. Typically these cmergitlg c.pistemolo~
gies build on scholarship currcnl Iy untlrtway in feminist philosophy which
chal l enges mai nst ream vi ews of rc:lson, rat i onal i t y, knowl edge, and the nat ure of
t he knower (see APA Newsl et t er on Femi ni sm and Phi l osophy 1989; Jaggar and
Bordo 1989; Code 1987; Garry and Pearsall 1989; Harding and Hintikka 1983).
Dougl as Buege, for i nst ance, argues for a femi ni st envi ronment al epi st emol ogy
t hat bui l ds on Lorrai ne Codes responsi bi l i st epi st emol ogy (Buege 1991). As Val
Plumwood suggest s, i f one mi st akenl y const rues envi ronment al phi l osophy as
only or mainly concerned with ethics, one will ncglcct a key aspect of the
overall problem which is concerned with the definiticbu of the human self as
separat e from nat ure, t he connect i on bet ween t hi s and t he i nst rument al vi ew of
nature, and broader political aspects of the critique of instrumentalism
(Pl umwood 1991). A femi ni st envi ronment al epi st emol ogy woul d address t hese
pol i t i cal aspect s of t he human/ nat ure di chot omy.
Other ecofeminists :lppcal IO the Critical Theory of I lorkheimcr (1974),
Adorno (1973, 1974), Balbus ( I982), and the I+ankfurt circle, cl:liming that
their epistemology and substantive analysis both point to a convergence of
feminist and ecological concerns, anticipating the more recent arrival of eco-
feminism (Salleh 1988, 131). For these feminists, Critical Theory provides a
critique of the nature versus culture and an epistcmological structure for
critiquing the rclntionship bclwcrn the tlomin~~tion of womcn and the dourinn-
tion of nature (see Sallch 1988; Mills 1987, 1991).
5. Symbolic. Many ecofeminists (see, e.g., Heresies #13; Bell 1988; Murphy
1990; Salleh 1988) explore the symbolic association and devaluation of women
and nature that appears in art, litcmnuc, religion, nnd theology. Drawing on
feminist literature (e.g., the literature of Atwood 1985; Bngby 1990; Corrigan
and Hoppe 1989, 1990; Dou >i;lgo I 1990; Gcnrh;lrt 1979; Kolotlny 1975; LeGuin
1985, 1987, 1988; Oliver 1983; Iicarcy IY76; Rich 1986; Silk0 1987; ZaI~;Iva
1988), some argue that patriar~hll conceptions of nature and women have
justified a two-pronged rape and domination of the earth and the women who
l i ve on i t (Murphy 1988,87), oft en usi ng t hi s as background for devel opi ng an
ecofeminist literary theory (Murphy 1991). Others explore the potential of
(eco)fcminism for creating alternative Iangrlages (e g., Daly 1978; Griffin 1978),
Ecological Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the Issues
xv
rel i gi ous/ spi ri t ual symbol s (e. g. , Goddess symbol s), hypot heses (e. g. , t he Gala
hypothesis), theologies (e.g., Christ 1990; Daly 1978; Gray 1988; Ruether
1989; Sprctnak 1982, 1989a; Starhawk 1989, 1990), and societies (e.g., the
feminist utopias suggested by Gearhart 1979 and Piercy 1976).
Other ecofeminists explore the symbolic connections between sexist and
naturist language, i.e., language which inferiorizes women and nonhuman
nature. This may involve raising questions about whether the sex-gendered
l anguage used t o descri be Mot her nat ure i s, i n Ynest ra Ki ngs words, pot en-
t i al l y l i berat i ng or si mpl y a rnt i onal e for t he cont i nued subordi nat i on of women
(King 1981, 12; see nlso Grlscom 1981; Ortner 1974; Roach 1991).& mny
i nvol ve est abl i shi ng connect i ons bet ween t he langunges used codescri be women,
nat ure, and nucl ear weaponry (see Adams 1990; Cohn 1989; St range 1989). For
i nst ance, women are oft en descri bed i n ani mal t erms (e. g. , as cows, foxes, chi cks,
serpents, bitches, beavers, old bats, pussycats, cats, birdbrains, harebrains).
Nat ure i s oft en descri bed i n femal e and sexual t erms: Nat ure i s raped, mast ered,
conquered, controlled, mined. Her secrets are penetrated and her womb is put
into the services of the man ofscicnce. Virgin timber is felled, cut down. Fertile
soil is tilled and land that lies fallow is barren, useless. The claim is that
l anguage whi ch so femi ni zes nat ure and nat ural i zes women descri bes, refl ect s,
and perpet uat es t he domi nat i on and inferior i zat i on of bot h by fai l i ng t o see t he
extent to which the twin dominations of women and nature (including animals)
are, i n fact , cul t ural l y (and not merel y fi gurat i vel y) anal ogous (Adams 1990,61).
The development of feminist theory and praxis which does not perpetuate this
l anguage nnd t he power-over syst ems of domi nat i on t hey rei nforce i s, t herefore,
a goal of feminist environmentalism2
\
6. Ethical. Much of the ecologicid feminists philosophical literature on
feminism ;Ind the environment has linked the two ethically. The claim is that
the in~crconucctions ml~ong the conceptuillIzaticrtls and treatment of women,
animals, and (the rest of) nonhuman nature require a feminist ethical analysis
and response. Mi ni mal l y, t he goal of femi ni st envil onmental et hi cs i s t o devel op
&
theories and practices concerning humans and thr natural environment which
are not male-biased and which provide n guide to action in the prefeminist
t
present (see Warren 1990; Warren and Chcney 199lb). Since a discussion of
et hi cal concerns i s i nt i mat el y t i ed wi t h al l eged t hevret i cal connect i ons bet ween
femi ni sm and t he envi ronment , consi der now t he range of t heoret i cal posi t i ons
which have emerged.
7. Theoret i cal . The vari et i es of alleged connect i ons bet ween femi ni sm and t he
environment (identified&t 1-6, above) Juve generated different, sometimes
competing, theoretical philosophical positions in all areas of feminist and
environmental scholarship. 1VoyheJleis this rgqr,e-evident that in the field of
- , ,.
Ecological Feminist Philosophies: An Overview o/ the Issues
environmental ethics. For reasons of space and audience, the discussion of
theoretical connections is limited here to the field of environmental ethics.
In many respects, conlcmpomry cnvilonmcntal ethics reflects the range of
positions in contemporary normal IVC philosophical ethics. The latter includes
tradition consequent ialist (e.g., ethical egoist, utilitarian) and nonconsequen-
tialist or deontological (e.g., Kantian, rights-based, virtue-based) positions, as
well as challenges to them by nontraditional (e.g., some feminist, existential-
ist, Marxist, Afrocentric) positions. Similarly with environmental ethics.
There are consequentialist (e.g., eco-utilitarian, utilitarian-based animal lib-
eration) and nonconsequentialist (c.g., human rights-based, rights-based ani-
mal liberation, land stewardship) positions that extend traditional ethical
considerations to animals and the nonhuman environment. There also are
nontraditional approaches (e.g., holistic Leopoldian land ethics, social ecol-
ogy, deep ecol ogy, ecol ogi cal femi ni sm). Ecoftminists and ecofemi ni st phi l oso-
phers who address envi ronment al i ssues can be found defendi ng each of t hese
sor t s of posi t i ons.
By extension, there is not one ecofeminist philosophical ethic. Given the
newness of ecofeminism as a theoretical position, the nalure of ecofeminist
ethics is still emerging. Among the most visible are feminist animal-rights
positions (e.g., Adams 1988, 1991; Khecl 1985; Slicer 1991) and feminist
environmental ethics based on an ethic of care (e.g., Curtin 1991; see also R.
King 1991), an ethic of respect (e.g., Westra 1989), themes in social ecology
(e.g., Y. King 1981, 198.3, 1989, 1990), and themes in bioregionalism (e.g.,
Cheney 19891~; Ilnn~ 1990). They all rccOgl1iZC importnnt C~I I I WCI i ons hrtwccn
t he i ndefensi bl e t reat ment of women and of nat ure, and t hey i nvol ve a commi t -
ment to developing ethics which are not male-biased. It remains an open
question, then, of how many, which, and on what grounds any of the various
positions in environmental ethics which acknowledge such feminist concerns
are ecofcminist philosophical l~ositions.2
8. Political (Praxis). FranGoisc dEaubonne introduced the term ecofemin-
isme in 1974 to bring attention to womens potential for bringing about an
ecological revolution (1974,213-52). Ec ofeminist and other feminist concerns
for women and t he envi ronment have al ways grown out of pressi ng pol i t i cal and
practical concerns. These range from issues of health concerning women and
environmental health to development and technology, the treatment of ani-
mals, peace, and antinuclear and antimilita~ism activism (see Griffin 1989b;
Harris and King 1990; Lahar 1991; Sprctnak 1989b). The varieties of feminist
thcorctical pcrspcctivcs on the cnvironmcnt arc proptrly sew as m iIttCllll>t to
stake seriously the grassroots activism and political concerns by developing
I
analyses of domination which explain, clarify, and guide that praxis (see The
Ecofeminist Neurslettet; Harris and King 1989; Y. King 1981, 1983, 1989, 1990;
Spretnak 1989b; Warren 1991).
Ecological Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the Issues xvii
PHI LOSOPHI CAL IMFORTANCE OF mE ~~FEMINIST L I TERATURE
In tile preceding 1 have identified eight sorts of connections alleged by
ecofemi ni st s and ecofemi ni st phi l osophers bet ween femi ni sm and t he envi ron-
ment. I have indicated why and how, if indeed there are these connections,
feminism, environmentalism, and environmental ethics will need to take them
seri ousl y. What are some of t he i mpl i cat i ons of t hese connect i ons for mai nst ream
phi l osophy? I suggest a few here.
The concept ual l i nks (gi ven above at 2) suggest t hat phi l osophi cal concep-
t i ons of t he sel f, knowl edge and t he knower, reason and rat i onal i t y, obj ect i vi t y,
and nature versus culture-mainstay philosophical notions in ethics, episte-
mology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, history of philosophy, political
philosophy-will need to be reconceived. The value dualisms which seem to
pervade t he west ern phi l osophi cal t radi t i on si nce t he earl y Greeks (e. g. , reason/
emotion, mind/body, culture/nature, human/nature) and the historical sex-
gendered associ at i on of women wi t h emot i on, body, and nat ure wi l l need t o be
examined for male-gender bias.
The historical and empi ri cal l i nks (gi ven at 1 and 3, above) suggest t hat soci al
sclentilic datn on women and the environment is relevant to the theoretical
undertakings in many areas of philosophy. In ethics, for example, this data on
women and nat ure rai ses i ssues of ant hropocent ri c and androcent ri c bi as. Can
mainstream normative ethical theories generate an environmental ethic which
is not male IriasedI In epistemology, data on the indigenous technical knowl-
edge (see Warren 1988) of women who gl obal l y const i t ut e t he mai n agri cul t ural
production force (e.g., at least 80 percent of the farmers in Africa are women)
rai ses i ssues about womens epi st emi c pri vi l ege about farmi ng and forest ry (see
Warren 1988): If there is such privilege, does it generate the need for feminist
st andpoi nt epi st emol ogi es, as some feminists have claimed (see Garry and
Pearsall 1989; Harding 1986; Harding and Hintikka 1983; Jaggar and Bordo
1989)? In metaphysics, data of the cross-cultural variability of women-nature
connections raise issues about the concept of nature and the nature/cultural
di chot omy. Is nat ure a gi ven, a cross-cul t ural const ant t hat st ands i n cont rast
h
to socially evolving and created culture, or is nature, like culture, a social
construct? Even if there really are trees, rivers, and ecosystems, does the way
nat ure i s concei ved and t heori zed about refl ect hi st ori cal , soci oeconomi c fact ors
in much the same way that, according to many feminists, conceptions and
theories about humans and human nature are constructed? In political
phi l osophy, data about t he inferior st andards of l i vi ng of women gl obal l y rai se
issues ahollt political theories and theorizing. What roles do unequal distribu-
tions of pcnver and privilege play in the maintenance of systems of domination
over bot h women and nat ure? How do theiaect t he cont ent and met hodol ogy
of political theories and the+ngl_la the hisfpry,of philosophy, data on the
xviii Ecolo&nI Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the Issues
hi st ori cal i nferi ori zat i on and associ at i ons of women and nat ure rai se i ssues about
the nature and substantive content of the philosophical theories advanced in
any given time period: Do they inhcril I~i;~scs ag:;tinst WOIIICII d twtllrc which
IWilr 011 the critical aSscssIucIIt of the thcorics thcmsclvcs? Iii philosopl~y of
science, particularly philosophy of biology, the tlati~ raise issues about the
relationships between feminism and science, particularly ecology. As Carolyn
Merchant asks, Is t here a set of assumpt i ons basi c to t he sci ence of ecol ogy t hat
al so hol ds i mpl i cat i ons for t he st at us of women? Is t here an ecol ogi cal et hi c t hat
is also a feminist ethic? (Merchant 1985, 229). Are there important parallels
between contemporary feminist environmental ethics and ecosystems ecology
whi ch suggest ways i n whi ch they are engaged i n mut ual l y support i ve proj ect s
(see Y. King 1989; Warren and Cheney 199l)l These are the sort of questions
rai sed by a phi l osophi cal look at t he si gni fi cance of i ssues concerni ng femi ni sm
and the environment.
ESSAYS I N THI S VOLUME
Ecofeminist philosopl~y INS certainly risen to the forefront of feminist and
envi ronment al concerns si nce t he publ i cat i on of the fi rst j ournal i ssue devot ed
exclusively to ecofeminist philosophy: Hywtia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy,
Special issue on Ecological Feminism (1991). This special issue was the first
col l ect i on ever publ i shed of expl i ci t l y phi l osophi cal art i cl es on ecol ogi cal femi -
nism. It broke new ground hy inviting feminist philosophers to join ecofeminist
scholars in the philosopl~ical exploration of issues involving women and nonhu~
man nature (or the ctlvil,olitrleIlt). Although the number of scholarly articles,
anthologies, and books on ecological feminism 1 x 1 s blossomed since then, this
ant hol ogy, a revi sed and expanded versi on of t hat speci al i ssue, remai ns t he fi rst
vol ume ever t o offer disti, actively f emi ni st phi l osophi cal essays on ecof emi ni sm.
The essays cont ai ned i n t hi s ant hol ogy vary bot h i n perspect i ves and i n subj ect
matter. Some ess;lys (c.~., Knren J. W;rrrens, Dcanc Curtins, and Roger J. H.
Kings) address the I1;tnll.c of a distinctively ecofeminist ethic and the mle of
pat ri archal conceptu:ll frameworks (e. g. , Warren) i n perpet uat i ng t he t wi n domi-
nat i ons of women and nat ure. Some (e. g. , St ephani e Laharb and Chri s Cuomos)
address t he grassroot s ori gi ns and nat ure of a t hought ful ecofemi ni st pract i ce or
pmxis. Some (e.g., Val Plumwoods and Robert Sessionss articles) focus on the now
infamous ecofeminism-deep ecology debate in environmental philosophy.
Others (e. g. , Deborah Sl i cers, Carol J. Adamss, Iat ri ci a Jagent owi cz Mi l l ss, and
Vi ct ori a Davions essays) address concretr i ssues around deep ecol ogi cal t reat ment
of animal rights ;md lhr omission of ecofcminist analyses of the domination of
animals, abortion, i l l 1 d nuclear deterl-cnce, respectively. Still others (e.g.,
Cat heri ne Roachs, Pat ri ck D. Murphys, and Carol H. Cantrells essays) address
i ssues of l anguage and l i t erary pract i ce: Roach probl emat i zes t he envi ronment al
slogan Love Your Mother; Murphy uses the dialogics of Russian theorist Bakhtin
Ecological Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the lssws xix
t o show t he need for a mut ual l y enhanci ng ecofemi ni st phi l osophy and l i t erary
theory; and Cantrell uses ecofeminist Susan Griffins classic book Woman and
Nature: The Roaring It&c I ler (1978) to show the formative role of Inngungc in
est abl i shi ng anal ogi es between wot nen and nat ure. Fi nal l y, t he essay by Karen j.
Warren and Ji m Cheney addresses t en ways i n whi ch ecofenri ni sm and t he sci ence
of ecol ogy are or coul d be engaged i n compl ement ary, support i ve proj ect s.
As feminists, environmentalists, and philosophers continue to see that any
analysis of what it is for humans to be ecological beings, what parameters
constitute an appropriate human-nonhuman nature relationship, and the im-
pact of the omission of gender as a category of analysis in contemporary
discussions of environmental problems, a solid, critical ecological feminist
philosophical scholarship will continue to be necessary. The articlrs In this
ant hol ogy form an i mport ant and (as an out growt h of t he hi ghl y successful 1991
Hypatia volume) a historically unprecedented step in that direction.
The scholnrship on t he ri ght al l eged sort s of connect i ons bet ween femi ni sm
and the environment addressed by ecofeminists generally and ecofeminist
philosophers in particular illustrates the importance of ecofeminist concerns
about how one conceives feminism, environmentalism, and environmental
phi l osophy. If one t akes seri ousl y al l eged ecofemi ni st phi l osophi cal connect i ons
between feminism and the environment, the nature and scope of bona fide
concerns in mainstream philosophy will be affected significantly. Presumably,
si gns of t aki ng t hese i ssues seri ousl y woul d be t o revi se t he courses we t each and
t o ret hi nk our schol arshi p accordi ngl y. As wi t h any at t empt t o i ncorporat e t he
scholarship on women and feminism into our curricula and scholarship, such
revising projects can be quite challenging. With regard to feminism and the
environment, they also may be vital-not only for women, animals, and planet
Earth, but for the development of worldviews and practices which are ecologi*
tally responsi bl e and soci al l y j ust for us al l .
The 1990s have often been dubbed The Decade of the Environment. Cer-
tainly the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro during June 1992 brought the
countries of the world together to address such issues as biodiversity, global
warmi ng, aci d rai n, pol l ut i on, deforest at i on and desertification, speci es endanger-
ment , preservat i on of wi l derness, and energy consumpt i on t o i nt ernat i onal at t en-
t i on, Incl uded among t he vari ous semi nars and conferences-t he Gl obal Forum-
that constituted satellite meetings to the Earth Summit was a special seminar,
Ecofeminism: Gender, Developmenrl and the Environment, hosted by the
University of Rio de Janeiro. This satellite seminar focused explicitly on ecological
femi ni sm: It made visiblscrucial and oftegpverlooked envi ronment al concems-
t he ei ght sort s of concerns di scussed i n t hi s i nt roduct i on-t hat ecofemi ni st s t hi nk
are necessary to any adequae e,nvicooomental policy, t heory, or phi l osophy.
-,,, !.
.
xx Ecolt~gical Feminist Ihilosophies: An C~ueruiew o/k Issues
As a participant in this satellite Ecofcminism seminar, it,wwan readily
apparent to me what impact this gender invisibility (or the invisibility of
what women do) has in the analysis and pr;lct ices of &)bal environmental
concerns. By p~d~lishing this hook, I hope to provide one sort of rem+ to this
invisibility, viz., to make ccofcminist issues pliilosoy,)iically significant, and
to make ecofeminist philosophy a vit:ll player on the field of feminist and
environmental concerns. If this anthology does that, it will successfully call
attention in an expressly philosophical way to the importance of ecofcminist
insights to all aspects of feminist, philosophical, and environmental scholar-
ship and practice.
NOTES
1. Major portions of this introduction are taken from two of my previously
published works (in APA Newsletter 1991, 108-16 and in Zimmerman 1993,
253-67).
2. Indeed, just what the similarities and tlifferences are between ecological
femi ni sm and deep ecol ogy, social ecol ogy, and ani mal ri ght s posi t i ons i n
envi ronment al et hi cs i s an i ssue whi ch receives consi derabl e schol arl y at t ent i on,
particularly in the leading journal in the field, Enuironmed Erhics. The so-
cal l ed debat e bet ween ecofemi ni sm and deep ecol ogy (t he posi t i on advocat ed by
Bi l l Deval l and George Sessi ons ( 1985), A rnc Nacss (1973, l986), and Warwick
Fox (1985, 1989), to name a few) has probably rcccived the most attention. The
debate between them will rmdo~il~lctlly continilr. In his preface to the Spring
I989 issue of Enoironmctual Ethics, m:lrking the hcginning of the journals second
decade, editor Eugene C. Hargrove committed the journal to providing a forum
for that debate:
I I I the coming dccnde the journal can be expected to chart
some new territory. Much attention is currently being given to
deep ecol ogy and ecofcmi ni sm and t he vari ous confl i ct s bet ween
t he t wo, bot h as movement s and as phi l osophi es. Because deep
ecologists and ecofeminists are as yet not even completely in
agreement about what t hey are di sagreei ng about , t hi s debat e can
be expected to be rather lengthy. (1989,3)
REFERENCES
Adams, Carol J. 1990. The sexual pol i t i cs of meat : A femi ni st -veget uri nn cri t i cal
t heory. New York: Cont i nuum.
-. 1991. Ecofeminism and the eating of animals. Hypatia 6( 1): 125-45.
Ecological Feminist Philosollhies: An Overview of the Issws
xxi
Adorno, Thcodor W. 1973. Neg&ue dialectics. Trans. E. B, Ashton. New York:
Seabury Pr ess.
-. 1974. Minima morulia: Reflections born &mqed life. Trans. E. E M.
Jephcott. London: New Left Books.
Al l en, Paul a Gunn. 1986. The sacred hoop: Recoveri ng t he femi ni ne i n Ameri can
Indi an t radi t i on. Bost on: Beacon Press.
-. 1990. The woman 1 love is a planet; The planet 1 love is a tree. In
Reweaving Ihe world: The emergence of ecofeminism. See Diamond and
Orenstein, 1990.
At wood, Margaret . 1985. The handmai ds t&. New York: Fawcet t Crest .
Bagby, Rachel L. 1990. Daught ers of growi ng t hi ngs. In Reweavi ng t he worl d: The
emergence ofecofemi ni sm. See Di amond and Orenst ei n, 1990.
Balbus, Isaac. 1982. Marxism and domination: A neo-hegelian, feminist, psychoana-
lytic theory ofsexual, political, and technological liberation. Princeton: Princeton
Uni ver si t y Pr ess.
Bell, Barbara Currier. 1988. Cable of blue hre: Glimpsing a group identity for
mankind. Studies in the I humanities 15(2): 90-107.
Buege, Dougl as. 1991. Epi st emi c responsi bi l i t y t o t he nat ural : Toward a femi ni st
epi st emol ogy for envi ronment al phi l osophy. Ameri can Phi l osophi cal Associ a-
tion Newsletter 9(I): 73-78.
Cal decot t , Leoni e, and St ephani e Lel and, eds. 1983. Recl ai m t he eart h. London:
The Womens Press.
Chcney, Jim. 1987. Eco-feminism and deep ecology. Environmental Ethics 9(2):
115-45.
-. 19898. The neo-stoicism of radical environmentalism. Enoironmenral
Ethics ll(4): 293-326.
-.1989b. Postmodern environmental ethics: Ethics as bioregional narra-
t i ve. Envi ronment & Et hi cs ll(2): 117-34.
Christ, Carol P. 1990. Rethinking theology and nature. In Reweaving the world:
The emergence ofecofemi ni sm. See Di amond and Orenst ei n, 1990.
Code, Lorrai ne. 1987. Epi st emi c responsi bi l i t y. Hanover, NH: Uni versi t y Press of
New Engl and.
Cohn, Carol. 1989. Sex and death in the lational world of,defense intellects. In
Exposi ng nucl ear @&&&es. See Russel l , 1989.
Collard, Andree, with,Joyce Contrucci. 1988. Rape of the wild: Mans violence
agai nst animals and t he eart h. Bl oomi ng1 on: Indi ana Uni versi t y Press.
Corrigan, Theresa, and Stephanie T. Hoppe. 1989. With a flys eye, whah wit,
and womans heart ; Ani mal s and women. Pi t t sburgh: Cleis Pr ess.
-.1990. And adeers ear, eagles song, and bears graces: Relationships between
animals and women. Pi t t sburgh: Cleis, Pr ess.
Daly, Mary. 1978. GynlEicolqy. Boston&acon Press.
Deval l , Bi l l and George Sessi ons. 1985. Deep ecol ogy: Liuingas i f nat ure mat t ered.
Salt Lake City: Peregrine S,mi$ Books. -+
r
-
. . *.d-
&iii Ecological Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the lssws
Di amond, Irene. 1990. Babi es, heroi c expert s, and a poi soned eart h. In J&weaving
t he world: The emergence o~ecofeminism. See Di amond and Orenst ei n, 1990.
Diamond, Irene, dGloria Fet\\nt\ Orcnstein, eds. 1090. Reweaving the w&d:
The emergence ofeco(fmitlism. San Frallcisco: Sierra Cl& hooks,
Doubiago, Sharon. 1990. Mama Coyot lc ralks to the boys. 111 kkding the U&I&:
The /)rotnise ofecofemi ni sm. See Ph, 1989.
Easlea, Bri an. 1981. Sci ence and sexual olpl)ression: Pat ri archys confront at i on with
women and nature. London: Weidenfcld & Nicholson.
dEaubonne, FranCoise. 1974. k Feminisme ou la Mart. Paris: Pierre Horay.
The ecofemi ni st neu&tter: A publ i cat i on of t he nat i onal womens st udi es associ a-
tion (NWSA) ecofeminist task force, ed. Noel Sturgeon. Middletown, CT
Center for the Humanities, Wesleyan University.
&let, Riane. 1988. The chalice B the blade: Our history, ourfuture. San Francisco:
Harper and Row.
-. 1990. The gaia tradition and the partnership future. In Reweaving the
worl d: The emergence ofecofemi ni sm. See Di amond and Orenst ei n, 1990.
Fox, Warwick. 1985. A postscript on deep ecology and intrinsic value. The
Trutnpctcr 2: 20-23.
-. 1989. The deep cccllogy-ecofcminism debate and its parallels. Emiron-
mental Ethics 1 1 ( 1): 5-2 5
Garry, Ann, and Marilyn 1 ,i>rsall, eds. 1989. Women, knowkdRe, and reality.
Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Gearhart, Sally. 1979. The wcmderffroloul: Stories of t he hill women. Boston:
Al yson Publ i cat i ons.
Gray, Elitabcth Dodson. 198 I. tireen pualculise lost. Welleslcy, MA: Roundtable
Pr ess.
Gray, Elizabeth Ddson, cd. 1988. Sacred dimensions oj womcui experience.
Wel l esl ey, MA: Roundt abl e Press.
Griffin, Susan. 1978. Women and nature: Therouring inside her. San Francisco:
Harper and Row.
-.198Ya. Spl i t cul t ure. In Heal i ng t he wounds: The Ijrotnise r$ccofeminism.
See Plant, 1989.
-.1989b. Ideol ogi es of madness. In Exposi ng nuckarphullacies. See Russel l ,
1989.
Griscom, Joan L. 1981. On healing thr nature/history split in feminist thought.
Heresies #13 4: 4-9.
Gwaganad. 1989. Speaki ng for t he eart h: The Haida way. In Reweavi ng the worl d:
The emergence ofecofemi ni sm. See Di amond and Orenst ri n, 1990.
I larding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. lthacil, NY: Cornell
Uni ver si t y Pr ess.
Harding, Sandra, and Merrill Hintikka, eds. 1983. Discovering reality: Feminist
perspectives on epi st emol ogy, metaphysics, met hodol ogy, and t he phi l osophy of
sci ence. Dordrecht : Rei del Publ i shi ng Co.
Ecological Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the ISSIUS xxiii
Harris, Adrienne, and Ynestra King. 1990. Rocking the ship of state: Toward a
feminist peace politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Horkheimer, Max. 1974. Eclipse of reason. New York: Seabury Press.
Jaggar, Alison M., and Susan R. Bordo, eds. 1989. Gender/body/knowkdge:
Femi ni st reconst ruct i ons of bei ng and knowi ng. New Brunswi ck, NJ: Rut gers
Uni ver si t y Pr ess.
Khcel, Marrl. 1985. The liberation of nature: A circular affair. Environmental
Ethics 7(2): 135-49.
-. 1987-1988. Animal liberation is a feminist issue. TheNew Catalyst
Quarterly 10: 8-9.
-. 1989. From healing herbs to deadly drugs: Western medicines war
agai nst t he nat ural worl d. In Heal i ng t he wounds: 7% promi se ofecofemi ni sm.
See Plant, 1989.
Ki ng, Roger J. H. 1991. Envi ronment al et hi cs and t he case of hunt i ng. Envi ron-
mental Ethics 13( 1): 59-85.
Ki ng, Ynest ra. 1981. Femi ni smand t he revol t ofnat ure. Heresi es #l3 4( 1):12-16.
-. 1983. The eco-feminist imperative. In Recluim the earth. See Caldecott
and Leland, 1983.
-. The ecology of feminism and the feminism of ecology. In Healing the
wounds: The promi se ofecofemi ni sm. See Pl ant , 1989.
-. 1990. Healing the wounds: Feminism, ecology, and the nature/culture
dualism. In Reweaving the world: The emergence of ecofeminism. See Diamond
and Orenstein, 1990.
Kolodny, Annette. 1975. The 4y of the land: Met&or as experience and history in
American life and fetters. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
LaChapelle, Dolores. 1978. Earth wisdom. Silverton, CO: Way of the Mountain
Learning Center and International College.
Lahar, Stephanie. 1991. Ecofeminist theory and grassroots politics. Hylmtia
6( 1): 2845.
LeGuin,Ursula K. 1985. Al ways comi ng home. New Yor k: Bant am Books.
-.1987. Buffalo gal s and other animal presences. Sant a Barbara, CA: Capra
Pr ess.
-. 1988. Wild oats andfireweed. New York: Harper and Row.
-. 1989. Women/wilderness. In Healing the wounds: The promise of
ecofeminism. See Plant, 1989.
McDaniel, Jay B. 1989. Of god and pelicans: A theology of reverence for life.
Loui svi l l e, KY: Westnlinster/John Knox Pr ess.
-. 1990. Eart h, sky, god, and mmtals: Devel opi ng an ecol ogi cal spirituality.
Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publicatiohs.
Merchant , Carol yn. 1980. The deat h (,Inulure: Women, ecol ogy, and t he sci ent i f i c
revolution. San Francis&: Harper and l&w.
-. 1985. Feminism and ecology. In Deepecology: Living as ifnature mattered.
See Deval l and Sessi ons, 1%85. T. - . /-p
. . '
xxi v Ecological Feminist Philos+hies: An Overview o/the Issues
-. 1989. Ecological revolutions. Chapel Hill and London: University of
North Carolina Press.
-.1990. Ecofeminisnl :md feminist theory. In Reweaving rite world: The
emergcncc of ccojemirlisttt See Diamoncl ;tntl Orcnstein, 1990.
. .
Mica, Maria. 1986. Patriurc hy and accumulation on a world scale. London: Zecl
Books Lt d.
Mills, Patricia Jagentowicz. 1987. Woman, mature, and psyche. New Haven: Yale
Uni ver si t y Pr ess.
-.1991. Feminism alld ecology: On the domination of nature. Hyljatia
6( 1): 162-78.
Murphy, Patrick 1). 1988. Introduction: Feminism, ecology, and the future of the
humani t i es. St udi es i n t he Humani t i es 15( 2): 85-89.
-. 1991. Ground, pivot, motion: Ecoleminist theory, dialogics, and literary
practice. Hymtia 6( 1): 146-62.
Naess, Arne. 1973. The shal l ow and t he deep, l ong-range ecol ogy movement : A
summary. Inquiry 16: 95-100.
-. 1986. The tlccp ecological movement: Some philosophical nspccts.
Ihiluso~Jucal In& Y 8: 10-3 I.
Oliver, Mary. 1983. American primitive. Boston: Little Brown.
Ortner, Sherry B. 1974. Is female to male as nature is to culture? In Wonlan,
cul ture, and soci et y. Mi chel l e Rosal do and Loui se Lamphere, eds. St anford:
St anf or d Uni ver si t y Pr ess.
Philipose, Pamela. 1980. Women act: Women and environmental protection in
India. In Reweavingthc work/l: The emcrgcncr o)/cco[cminism. Src IXunond and
Orenstein, 1990.
Piercy, Marge. 1976. Woman on t he edge of time. New York: Fawcet t Crest .
Plant, Judith. 1990. Searching for common ground: Ecofeminism and bio-
regi onal i sm. In Reweavi ng t he worl d: The emergence of ecofemi ni sm. See Di a-
mond and Orenstein, 1990.
Plant, Judith, ed. 1989. Healing the wmd.s: The promise of ecofeministn. Santa
CNZ, CA: New Society Publishers.
Plumwood, Val. 1986. Ecofeminism: An overview and discussion of positions
and arguments. Au.scr&sinn Journal of Philosophy Supplement to Vol. 64: 120-
37.
-. 1991. Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy,
and the critique of r:ltionaIism. Hybatia 6( 1): 3-27.
Rich, Adrienne. 1986. Your ncuive land, your life. New York: Norton.
Roach, Catherine. 1991. Loving your mother: On the woman-nature relnc ion.
Hypatin 6( I ): 46-59.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. 1975. New wonum/new earth: Sexist ideologies rind
human liberation. New York: The Seabury Press.
-. 1989. Toward an ecological-feminist theory of nature. In Healing the
wounds: The promi se ofecofemi ni sm. See Pl ant , 1989.
Ecological Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of the Issues
xxv
Russel l , Di ana, ed. 1989. Exposi ng nucl ear phallacies. New York: Pergamon Press.
Salleh, Ariel Kay. 1984. Deeper than deep ecology: The eco-feminist connec-
tion. Environmental Ethics 6(4): 339-45.
I
-. 1988. Epistemology and the metaphors of production: An eco.feminist
t
readi ng of cri t i cal t heory. St udi es i n t he Humani t i es 5(2): 130-39.
i -. 1990. Living with nature: Reciprocity or control? In Ethics ofenviron-
i.
tnent and development, ed. R. and J. Engel. Tucson: University of Arizona
Pr ess.
Shiva, Vandana. 1988. St ayi ng al i ve: Women, ecol ogy, and devel opment . London:
Zed Books.
Silko, Lesl i e Marmon. 1987. Landscape, hi st ory, and t he Puebl o i magi nat i on. In
On nature: Nature, landscape, and natural hismy, ed. Daniel Halpern. San
Francisco: North Point.
Slicer, Deborah. 1991. Your daughter or your dog? A feminist assessment of
animal research issues. Hypatia 6( 1): 108-24.
Spretnak, Charlene. 1989a. Toward an ecofeminist spirituality. In Healing the
wounds: The promi se ofecofemi ni sm. See Pl ant , 1989.
/
-. 1989b. Nal~lIl\g the cultural forces that push us toward war. In Exlmsing
nuclear phallucies . See Russel l , 1989.
-. 1990. Ecofeminism: Our roots and flowering. In Reweaving the world:
The emergence ofecofemi ni sm. See Di amond and Orenst ei n, 1990.
Spretnak, Charlene, ed. 1982. The politics of womens spirituality. Garden City,
NY: Anchor Press.
Starhawk. 1989. Feminist, earth-based spirituality and ecofeminism. In Hculing
t he wouncls: The promi se ofecofemi ni sm. See Pl ant , 1989.
-. 1990. Power, authority, and mystery: Ecofeminism and earth-based
spi ri t ual i t y. In Reweavi ng t he worl d: The emergence of ecofemi ni sm. See Di a-
mond and Orenstein, 1990.
St range, Penny. 1989. It l l make a man of you: A femi ni st vi ew of t he arms race.
In Exljosing nuclear ph&cies. See Russell, 1989.
Warren, Karen J. 1987. Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environ-
mental Ethics 9( 1): 3-20.
-. 1988. Toward an ecofeminist ethic. Studies in the Humanities 15(2):
140-56.
-. 1989. Water and streams: An ecofeminist perspective. Imprint
(June): 5-7.
-.1990. The power and t he promi se of ecol ogi cal femi ni sm. Envi ronment al
Ethics I2( 2): 125-46. Reprinted in this volume.
-.lY9 I h. Introduction. Hypatia 6( 1): l-2.
-. 199 la., Toward a feminist peace politics. Journal of Peace and Justice
Studies 3( 1): 87-102. I
*-mu
Warren, Karen J., and Jim Cheney. 1991. Ecofeminism and ecosystem
ecology. Hypatia 6( 1): 1731-9,7. . -
*
*!y.
. *.., .
.-
xxvi
Ecological Feminist Philosophies: An Overview of dw lrsucs
Westra, Laura. 1989. Ecology and animals: Is there a joint ethics of respect?
Envi ronment al Et hi cs 11(3):215-30.
Woman o/power. 1988. Nature Issue. 9 (SKI illg).
Zahava, Irene. 1988. Through other eyes: Atlirttd stories by women. Freedom, CA:
The Cr ossi ng Pr ess.
Zi mmerman, Mi chael . 1987. Femi ni sm, deep ecol ogy, and envi ronment al et hi cs.
Environmental Ethics 9( 1): 2 l-44.
-* 1993. Environmentnl phi l osophy: Front anitnul ri ght s t o radi cal ecol ogy.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice l-tall.