Environmental degradation is a sad occurrence for our planet. However, not everyone carries that burden evenly. Women are often the ones who directly interact with nature more, gathering water, fuel, and food for the rest of the family. When the local water supply is damaged, the women are inconvenienced and must go further for fresh drinking water. The opportunity cost of going out of their way to retrieve such takes away from important activities like school, where women’s attendance goes up 12% just by having their water source 15 minutes closer. Essentially, women are expected to do just as much with less. They are expected to be able to support their family and community as they always have been despite environmental degradation robbing them of the natural resource to do so. Going out of their way to find these diminishing resources puts a strain on them and leaves them in danger. All the while, they have less time for other areas of life. Agarwal notes that their habitat being destroyed negatively affects their time, income, nutrition, health, social survival networks, and indigenous knowledge. While they are burdened with many chores putting them close to nature, the women shoulder a huge responsibility and as a result are very invested in the state of the natural world around them.
While all ecofeminism perspectives are a breath of fresh air, the difference between the western and the non-western perspective is that the non-western perspective directly looks at how the most disenfranchised are affected by environmental degradation. In the western world, we are often very removed from nature, because we are part of a culture where we don’t need to step out into it every day to procure the essentials for our families. We can easily go to the store for everything we need. If something is in short supply, it’s reflected by a higher price on the shelves. For those living in third world countries however, if something is not readily in supply they must go searching far and long for it. We are clearly disconnected from what is going on at the ground floor level where are goods are procured, so we aren’t as directly affected when something goes sour, because we don’t understand the full gravity of the implications and the hardships that follow.
Both the western and non-western ecofeminist perspectives have something to offer. We need to of course think of how women are oppressed in American society, and how we see those oppressions play out in the home, work and political sphere. Gender oppression and exorbitant consumption are abundant in our society, and they give way to justifications that allow them to remain the status quo. That is why it is so important to attack the ideas that got us here in the first place. If the ideas are dismantled, then we can rebuild our notions and design a world that is more inclusive and diversity. The diversity that we talk about in the United States is much different than the need for diversity in places such as India. One thing that Vandana Shiva advocates strongly for is biodiversity. In doing so, she is undermining big business incentives to grow cheap cash crops that are ridden with fertilizers and pesticide, instead opting that the best seeds and growing methods rely on nothing more than what’s already in your backyard. The move back to simple, indigenous agricultural practices emphasizes the need to let locals have more control in their community. It is them who should be tending to the crops as they are the ones who know the land and live directly off it. This method embraces diversity, allowing each farm to be diverse and wonderful as those who live on it, which in term helps produce clean, diverse food grown sustainably. Those like Shiva fighting on that behalf can feel good knowing that they are on the ground floor advocating for differences that have been proven to be successful biologically all long. On the western front, the attack is more ideological, and helps to transform the schools of thought that allows farms like those in India to be viewed monetarily, with no regard to the people living on them. As it’s been said, there is no correct, fully formed view of ecofeminism, so it’s important to encompass all existing ideas into a framework that can be used to enact change globally.
I like how you phrased women’ situations in the Global South as “women are expected to do just as much with less.” Reading about even just the water situation women have to deal with in countries much different than my own has been eye opening. I know that I have privilege due to the fact that I have running water, and many other conveniences, in my house, but it is something I barely ever sit and recognize. Reading more into different ecofeminist views the past week has been very eye opening. I think that when we talk about how other countries are struggling in certain aspects (such as water supply) and how we can help them, some people are very quick to say, “Hey wait, that happens in America too!” That is so true. I said it the other week in response to another blog, that we have environmental problems and brought up the water supply issue we all seem to ignore in Flint, Michigan. (Full breakdown here: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/flint-water-crisis-everything-you-need-know). I think the biggest difference between environmental issues in the United States and many countries in the Global South is that they are more rampant there. Yes, America has water issues. However, when asked about it, everyone can only really name one city that that’s happening in. Flint has become the poster child of cities for water issues. In other countries, everyone wouldn’t name just one single city because there are so many areas and cities experiencing the same issues. Just because a country is considered wealthy doesn’t mean people don’t struggle. It would be ignorant to assume so. I also think it’s ignorant to act like the average American faces the same adversity as people in other countries do. You did a good job acknowledging that ecofeminism is different in different parts of the world because people’s day to day lives and the way their environment affects them is different. Of course we have different trains of thoughts. We’ve all had different experiences. “Ecofeminism” has different definitions for different people just like straight up “feminism” does.
Hi Erik!
The sentence you wrote about Western culture being removed from nature on the basis that people form the Global South are really struck a chord with me. It’s almost such an obvious thought to have when considering the differences with the connections that Western and non-Western nations have with nature that I almost feel embarrassed for not explicitly thinking about it myself! I do agree very much with your statement that a combination of ideological Western ecofeminism and “material” non-Western ecofeminism would be a positive step to make. I feel like I have talked about intersectionality quite a bit these past couple weeks, but I feel as though that the Western world does not recognize that intersectionality can apply to environmental issues as well. We do not continue to use natural resources on our own commonly when, as you stated, we can just pick them up from the store. I personally never find myself wondering what resource I will have to go without, such as fresh vegetables or drinking water, because I am privileged in this aspect that my culture has led me to not have to think about it. Ideology is crucial to framing the Western state of mind to include these thoughts instead of overlooking the fact that other places in the world, the only resources that people may have are being depleted. The ideology of Western ecofeminism seeks changes no doubt, but it does not feel encompassing. The material ecofeminist approach that Bina Agarwal is one I believe is also crucial, as it can contribute to the ideology of ecofeminism being put into action and recognizing lived experiences. With being so disconnected from nature and the impacts it has on other parts of the world, do you feel as though the Western world can be more cognizant of this to include more intersection thinking?
Test