The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism - by Karen J. Warren

In the article titled “The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism”, Karen J. Warren argues that ecofeminism, the idea that there are important connections between the historical domination of women by men and the historical domination of non-human nature by human beings as a species, is an essential component of any adequate environmental ethic. I find this argument to be insufficient.

Although the oppressive conceptual framework that falsely justifies the subordination and unfair treatment of women and the framework that falsely justifies the subordination and unfair treatment of nature are both products of our patriarchal society (and are based on what Warren calls the logic of domination) and have historical connections to one another, the two problems do not necessarily need to be (and should possibly not be) acknowledged together, as one entity, in order for us to make attempts to solve each of them.

Sexism and naturism are two separate forms of oppression, despite the connections they may have to one another. In order to eliminate sexism in our society, patriarchy must end. In order to improve the condition of our environment, we must drastically change the way that we live in many ways, such as by reducing consumption and by reducing or eliminating our use of fossil fuels. A complex assemblage of forces is responsible for both our ecological crisis and for the presence of sexism in our society, and although there is likely some overlap of causes regarding each problem, the two problems are still separate from one another and must be dealt with in different ways.

Simply by changing our attitude toward nature and the way that we treat the environment, we may not be able to solve our current ecological crisis, due to the damage we have already caused. Moreover, changing the way we treat the environment- specifically, changing our attitude from one based on a desire to dominate nature to one based on a desire to protect and conserve natural resources, may not do anything at all to improve the condition of women in our society that is the result of patriarchy. Likewise, solving the problem of the oppression of women by men may not do anything at all to change our attitudes about or treatment of our environment; the two problems are separate.

In order to address both the oppression of nature and the oppression of women more effectively, Warren should have spent more time in her article attacking the patriarchy and some of the many factors contributing toward our environmental crisis (such as capitalism and our culture of consumption) instead of emphasizing the importance of recognizing the connections between naturism and sexism.

A Critique of Lynn White

Lynn White's idea that Christianity is to blame for human beings' current ecological problems is a severely deficient theory. First and foremost one cannot simply blame one concept such as Christianity as the reason for man's relationship with nature and the state our planet's environment is in. Though Lynn does bring up other concepts such as technology and science he links these mostly western advances all back to Christianity. The problem with this linkage of environmentally detrimental western technology to Christianity is that a great deal of the technology was not simply advances made on already existing ideas from the Islamic and Greek scholars. Concepts like the oil drill or the dam were around many years centuries before the birth of Christ, and were used without paying reverence to spirits or the land.
Lynn makes note that these technologies, created by the West and thus Christianity, are being used around the world (despite some of these creations not being legitimately from the West). In countries where Christianity holds barely any control though the same if not worse events can be seen happening when concerned with nature. In countries around the world, whenever there has been an industrial boom, or a huge increase in infrastructure the environment has suffered. Even now in China, a country officially with no religion but predominantly Eastern in their though processes, does exactly what Christian 'nations' have done in the past. Whether you've been raised in an Islamic, Shinto, or Hindi life style you're just as likely to subject nature to your will as can be seen from the Middle East, through India, and all the way to Japan. Though people do exist who take the Bible literally, Lynn cannot place so much in this modern era on the book of Genesis, the world has simply changed too much.

Possibility for Sustainability in Genesis

White does not provide adequate support for the thesis that the Judeo-Christian tradition, specifically the account of creation in Genesis, is to blame for the current environmental crisis.

In Genesis, man is instructed to ‘conquer’ the earth, and to ‘be master’ over other living things. However, it is of course true that nature could ‘serve man’ in an environmentally sustainable fashion. It is troubling to think that people would be inclined to interpret the account in Genesis in such a way that they feel obligated to recklessly exploit the natural world, and it does not seem that the emergence of Christianity should have encouraged people to engage in this kind of exploitative behavior. Contrarily, the Judeo-Christian tradition can be seen as promoting that mankind be good stewards of the earth, as we can see in the second account of the creation which says, “Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it” (v. 15). White does not give consideration to this prominent statement in Genesis, which seems to promote the conclusion which is the opposite of his own.

While being told to ‘conquer’ the earth may have in some way contributed to Western man’s sense of entitlement to use the earth’s resources as he wishes, it has not been adequately supported that this is the main historical cause of mankind’s exploitation of nature or for our environmental crisis. He has offered conceivable correlations between the account of Genesis and mankind’s understanding of himself as being superior to the rest of the living things on earth, but he does not establish that this responsible for the exploitation of the earth as opposed to other possible factors.

The Earth: a Gift and a Privilege

As I have always understood, and what seems to be reflected in Dobel’s arguments, the earth was a gift to humans. They were given dominion over the earth and all the other living things that live upon it being that they were made in the likeness and image of God. If this dominion has led to the obvious destruction of the earth and its resources, I am still not convinced. Dobel seems to be in the same mindset.
If the earth was a gift and it was entrusted to humans than it would be in the best interest for current inhabitants to care for the earth for their own survival. Yet, it would also be in their best interest to concern themselves with its wellbeing for the sake of future generations, which they were given the task by God to produce.
Where I feel that Dobel has gone astray is when he argues that the earth and the creatures of the earth have an intrinsic value of their own, separate from their relationship to human need. “The earth must be regarded as an autonomous ethical entity bound not just by the restraints of physical law but also by respect for its inherent goodness and covenanted limitations placed upon our sojourn.” He says this then goes onto describe a kind of balance between earth and nature but the main concern is on the benefits this balance will bring to humans.
In this way, I believe that it should be considered that the story of creation is in the order that it is and is declared “good” at each step not because each step is by itself an intrinsically good entity but that it is good only in relation to the end result of the planet’s need to existence, the existence of humans. God created man and gave all that he created over to him to live off of and rule over. Man understands that this is a gift, a privilege, not a right by any means, clearly shown through that act of God exiling man from his garden for disobedience. However, man has maintained the authority over earth and its creatures.

The Cultural Basis of Our Environmental Crisis

In his article, Moncreif states that as human beings “the desire for a better life is universal; that is, the desire for higher status position and the achievement of culturally defined desirable goals is common to all societies.” He continues later with “there appears to be an almost universal tendency to maximize self-interests.” I think that this is one of the major, if not the most important, underlying reason to why we are in the environmental crisis that we find ourselves in today. It is the fact that as humans we essentially look out for our best interests. Whether some would like to admit that, it’s generally true. Sure, some people care more about others than themselves, but if a situation arose that would benefit them in some way, I wouldn’t doubt that they would take advantage of that. I think that is exactly what we do with our environment. We don’t care enough to actually do anything about it because we are all getting away with it and it is benefiting some people, either monetarily, or saving time, or what have you. The air pollution dumped out by chemical plants needs to be disposed of somehow and it’s easy for them to just open up their vents and let it out. Companies that dump waste, probably more than they are legally supposed to, into the seas and rivers don’t really care about what that’s doing to the animals or to our future generations; they need to dump it somewhere. Basically, my point is that there is no way religion is the cause of the crisis on our hands as White declared, in that respect I fully agree with Moncrief. When it comes right down to it, if you see someone throw their McDonald’s bag out of their car window, are you going to turn around and pick it up and take it to a trash can? No, you’ll shake your head and keep driving simply because it’s easier for you. As humans we will always want to be wealthier or prettier or happier, and sadly many people accomplish that, or at least try to, by exploiting our environment. They do it without caring because the Earth God isn’t going to come down and strike them with a bolt of lightning for doing so. Whether it’s wrong, that doesn’t matter. It happens, and I agree that it is one of the reasons our environment is in such bad shape.

The Power and Promise of Eco-feminism

The Power and Promise of Eco-feminism is noteworthy and helps to provide a different perspective to oppressive conceptual frameworks in combination with our environmental crisis. Ecological feminism claims that the domination of women historically and conceptually is tied to the domination of nature. I am a firm believer in the study of the relationship between human and the environment and the implications that has on our behavioral, social and environmental problems; however, this theory seems to just add to the gap between theory and action.
Warren asserts that we can’t solve the social problem of sexism without attacking the way our patriarchal society conceives of and treats nature. Moreover, she argues that we can’t solve the environmental problem without attacking sexism. Eco-feminism, as argued by Warren, falsely prioritizes feminism as the sole solution to our global impact on the environmental degradation crisis.
Our current environmental crisis is the result of many different frameworks and should present the premise that the complex problems and issues of women and the environment should not be compartmentalized. Instead, the conceptual framework that will facilitate an ethics of stewardship and equality for all life, should posit that the roots of contemporary social, cultural, behavioral, political and environmental issues are intertwined among numerous fields, not just feminism.
Warren effectively makes a case that the global impact of the environmental crisis has had an effect on the lives of women. The degradation of the planet and oppression of women were caused by the same set of attitudes of oppression. However, this theory is lacking in reaching its full potential to motivate and empower people, to bring about serious and urgent change. Eco-feminism, as presented, seems to be restricted and lacks the forward-looking nature and notion of responsibility inherent in our current environmentalist ideology.
However, there is potential in feminism serving an entry point into the environmental ethics realm. Eco-feminism may assist in finding solutions to the environmental crises. But right now, it is restricted and insufficient.

The Effect of Biblical Interpretation on the Environment

I believe that Dobel, when arguing against the contribution of the Bible and Christianity to ecological destruction, fails to take the discrepancy of interpretation into account. Religion can have a profound effect of the lives of people or on a culture, and many see Christianity as a supreme authority concerning their way of life, which would include the way in which they treat the environment. If a Christian finds evidence of permission to perform an action in the Bible, he may view the act as justifiable; passages from Genesis do seem to suggest that man is to dominate and subdue the earth. When Dobel contends that the message in the Bible is not to dominate it but to maintain a more humble attitude towards the environment, he does not acknowledge that one’s beliefs regarding the Bible’s message depend upon the individual’s own interpretation. Given the common human characteristic of egocentricity, and that many people are bound to interpret passages literally and not read into them so much, the possibility that there may exist opinions differing from that of Dobel does not seem too unlikely. It is possible that at some points in time influential religious authorities or civilizations might have prevalently espoused the view of human superiority and ultimate control over nature—the religion will become what the people make of it. Such people may then adopt attitudes based upon their interpretations, which may then become ingrained in their society over time. Behaviors accompany attitudes, and behaviors quickly turn into habits, habits are passed down to progeny, and habits do not easily die, even if the beliefs they originated from might. If Christians interpreted the Bible as allowing one to dominate the earth and then did so, then the actions of a society of Christians could contribute to and propagate what they may believe to be justified environmental destruction.

Environmental Destruction is due to Egocentricity not Christianity

Human beings are slowly destroying the environment through exploiting natural resources, pollution, and overall lack of concern for beings unrelated to ourselves. We face a crisis that affects each and every one of us and will continue to grow in magnitude if no measures are taken to combat it. Various theories have been proposed attempting to describe why we as humans believe it is acceptable to do harm to our planet and to disregard the value of any non-human inhabitants.
Lynn White suggests that it is the Judeo-Christian belief that man's role is to control and dominate nature, which is primarily to blame for our contempt of nature. In Genesis, Adam and Eve are instructed to multiply, fill the earth, and conquer it” (Genesis 1) and he gives them dominion over all living things on earth. White claims that it is this instruction from the Bible that has led man to believe that he reigns supreme over all other beings. As a result of this feeling of superiority, man has exploited the earth for his own purposes without questioning whether or not he is doing more harm than good.
While this theory may have been true in Medieval times when religion dictated all parts of one’s life, it hardly seems relevant in our modern secular society, The United States is composed of three hundred million people from varied cultures, backgrounds, and belief systems. If the Judeo-Christian idea of domination of nature was truly the root of our current ecological crisis, there would likely have been a decrease over time in the amount of environmental destruction as our nation evolved from being centered on the church to a much more secular society. What we have seen instead is a continual and steady increase in the exploitation of resources.
The human race's egocentric nature and inability to recognize the impact its actions have on the future is more likely to blame for the environmental crisis than religion. A business owner cares more about making money than the affects that dumping toxic sludge from his factory into a stream will have on the water and the animals that inhabit it. Religion is not to blame for this selfish nature. We do not chop down trees because the Bible says we have the right to do so. We do so because it ultimately benefits us and unfortunately, we fail to care what implications it has for those generations that follow us.