Aholocaust goes on among us: tomorrow at dawn, another ancient plant or bird will be extinct; nine-hundred million people starve;footnote1 dammed-up rivers run sour and parched soils crack open; continents swarm with environmental refugees; man-made viruses are unleashed; silently, an ozone hole and electro-magnetic radiation cull new cancer victims; oil spills suffocate sea life and melting seas threaten island communities; body parts and dna are carved up and traded; city people breathe sulphurous air, their food laced with wartime pesticides; and mothers bear limbless jelly babies from nuclear fallout that rings the globe. Will you too, close your eyes to these crimes, the linear model of ‘progress’ exported by an enlightened West?
Certainly, our humanist ‘social science’ has failed to grasp such happenings, numb to the palpable materiality of nature’s decimation. And writing as if ‘ecology’ were merely an irritating new world view, many left intellectuals argue that the ‘central issue’ in ecopolitical thought should be the status of ‘human rights’ versus those of non-human species. Cecile Jackson takes this line in her essay, ‘Radical Environmental Myths: A Gender Perspective’.footnote2 As a feminist, Jackson is rightly concerned about how radical ecology’s post-humanist bio-ethic will affect the lot of women and other disadvantaged people. Accordingly, she urges us to engender environmental debate without delay. For, in the ongoing ‘struggle for recognition of women’s full humanity’, Jackson suspects women are now losing political ground to non-human species.
Gender studies look at how masculine and feminine behaviours are historically shaped and culturally specific. Jackson writes as if no Green theory had yet integrated such analysis, but gender-focused contributions to environmental philosophy have been ongoing for at least two decades, as well as hearty debates between women and the ecopolitical
By sidelining gender analysis in ecofeminist writing, Jackson misrepresents its politics as a form of naturalistic reductionism. Ecofeminist theorists may indeed discuss the significance of biological and sexed activities such as birthing, but not without understanding that feminine and masculine gender identities are historically, culturally and discursively mediated. Jackson’s recent self-positioning as an advocate for gender analysis thus seems oddly uninformed. Her demand for a ‘historical political economy to make sense of linkages’ between culture and nature and, her statement that ‘gendered studies of local knowledges are conspicuously absent’, ignores Pietila’s work on Finnish housewives and gnp; Mies’ study of piece workers in Narsapur; or for that matter, my account of women’s ecological consciousness-raising in Australia’s steel city.footnote5
If Jackson’s claim about the lack of gender analysis in ecofeminism is inadequately researched, equally her critique mistranslates several basic propositions. To take an example or two: she quotes Mies and Shiva’s Ecofeminism (1993) as saying: ‘In grassroots movements. . .it is women more than men who understand that a subsistence perspective is the only guarantee of survival for all.’footnote6 Reading with essentialist eyes, Jackson finds here a claim that a priori, regardless of gender socialization, women are somehow innately better able to understand daily survival needs. In fact, Mies and Shiva see women’s practical ecopolitical sensibility as a learned outcome of gender-ascribed labours and responsibilities. Moreover, as ecofeminists, they want to move beyond the oppressive division of labour that loads so much on women’s shoulders with so few