Day: November 2, 2024

Introduction: “Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature” by Georg M. Gugelberger

“Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature” by Georg M. Gugelberger first appeared in 1991 in New Literary History, published by The Johns Hopkins University Press. In this pivotal work, Gugelberger challenges Western literary conventions by arguing for the inclusion of “Third World Literature” in the global literary canon. He critiques the traditional Western canon’s exclusionary practices, suggesting that this “other” literature not only provides essential political and historical insights but also offers a unique perspective on themes such as colonialism, nationalism, and resistance. The article highlights how Third World literature often rejects European literary norms, instead engaging with issues of identity, oppression, and cultural survival. Gugelberger’s emphasis on this literature’s inherent political nature underscores its role as a form of resistance and cultural assertion against neocolonial influences, making his work a significant contribution to discussions on postcolonial literature and theory.

Summary of “Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature” by Georg M. Gugelberger

• Critique of the Western Canon: Gugelberger asserts that traditional literary canons in the West have persistently marginalized or entirely excluded Third World literature. He argues that this oversight is not just a matter of literary selection but reflects broader issues of cultural dominance and intellectual imperialism. The Western canon often operates as a barrier, where inclusion is based on Western definitions of literary merit, creating a “closure [that] is unilateral” and resistant to perspectives from the Global South (p. 505).
• Political and Cultural Resistance: The work emphasizes that Third World literature should be understood as an instrument of resistance against colonial and neocolonial oppression. This literature is often “bound to be overtly political,” differing fundamentally from mainstream Western literature that typically conceals its political content (p. 507). Gugelberger illustrates this through references to Fanon’s concepts of revolutionary literature and Cabral’s assertions on culture as a “product of history” (p. 513).
• Centrality of ‘Otherness’ and Self-Definition: Gugelberger proposes that Third World literature not only confronts external imperial powers but also seeks a cultural self-definition. This effort entails “significant cultural otherness” that challenges Western readers to rethink their perspectives on global narratives (p. 519). Third World writers often draw from oral traditions, local histories, and communal experiences, promoting an alternative narrative that prioritizes “cultural identity over individualism” (p. 515).
• Rejecting Homogeneity in Third World Literature: A major concern in Gugelberger’s work is the danger of reducing Third World literature to a single, homogenous category. He explains that the term itself can be problematic, as it risks “the temptation to harmonize homogeneity and heterogeneity,” potentially overshadowing the diversity of perspectives within African, Latin American, and Asian literary traditions (p. 508). Instead, Gugelberger supports a nuanced approach that respects the unique cultural contexts and voices within Third World literature.
• Re-evaluating Canonical Boundaries: Gugelberger argues that integrating Third World literature into the academic canon requires not merely adding texts but “subverting the present canon” to allow for new forms of analysis and critical theory (p. 518). Referencing thinkers like Ngugi wa Thiong’o and Paulo Freire, he calls for a shift from Eurocentric standards of literary evaluation to frameworks that recognize literature’s role in societal liberation and intellectual decolonization (p. 507).
• Relevance for Global Understanding: Gugelberger contends that studying Third World literature is vital to fostering a more comprehensive worldview. He argues that without engaging with these perspectives, “our established ‘canon’ of great masterpieces remains parochial and fundamentally obsolete” (p. 512). He suggests that such literature provides insights into global struggles and illuminates the perspectives of marginalized communities.
• Theoretical and Practical Implications: Finally, Gugelberger outlines the necessity of developing new critical approaches that do not impose Western analytical models on Third World literature. He points to the work of Benita Parry and Gayatri Spivak on colonial discourse to illustrate how Third World literature both defies conventional theory and requires critical frameworks that align with its themes of resistance, survival, and identity (p. 518).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature” by Georg M. Gugelberger

Term/Concept	Definition	Context in Gugelberger’s Work
Third World Literature	A body of literary work originating from postcolonial nations, often characterized by political resistance.	Gugelberger describes it as literature that actively resists colonial and neocolonial influences (p. 507).
Canon	The collection of works traditionally accepted as the most important or influential in literature.	The Western canon excludes much of Third World literature, which Gugelberger critiques as intellectually imperialistic (p. 505).
Decolonization	The process of challenging and breaking free from colonial influence and mindsets.	Gugelberger calls for the decolonization of the literary canon to include marginalized voices (p. 507).
Resistance Literature	Literature that confronts and opposes dominant political, social, or cultural systems.	Seen in works that address oppression and advocate for freedom, central to Third World literature (p. 516).
National Allegory	A narrative style where individual stories symbolize collective national or social issues.	Fredric Jameson’s term used to describe how Third World literature represents collective identity (p. 518).
Otherness	A concept of cultural and identity difference from the Western norm, often seen as marginal.	Gugelberger argues Third World literature emphasizes “cultural otherness” (p. 519).
Colonialist Discourse	The body of narratives, ideologies, and practices that justify and maintain colonial domination.	Gugelberger references scholars like Spivak and Bhabha, who critique this discourse (p. 518).
Neocolonialism	The continued economic and cultural control of former colonies by Western powers.	Gugelberger notes that Third World literature often addresses this modern form of colonialism (p. 513).
Counter-Hegemonic	A stance or movement opposing the dominant cultural, social, or political ideology.	Third World literature is described as inherently counter-hegemonic, challenging Western norms (p. 520).
Geo-Thematics	The study of nations and social groups as represented in literature.	Gugelberger describes it as an alternative approach to analyzing “Third World” and Western representations (p. 521).
Testimonial Literature	First-person narratives that document social injustice and human rights abuses.	Gugelberger identifies it as a form of resistance and self-representation in Third World literature (p. 519).
Humanist Cooptation	The assimilation of revolutionary ideas into mainstream ideologies, reducing their oppositional power.	JanMohamed’s warning against the dilution of Third World literature’s radical message through humanist ideals (p. 520).
Dialectical Approach	A method of analyzing oppositions, contradictions, and social conflicts.	Gugelberger describes the dialectical understanding of terms like “freedom” and “democracy” within Third World literature (p. 515).
Heterogeneity vs. Homogeneity	The tension between diverse identities and the urge to generalize them into one.	Gugelberger warns against treating Third World literature as a homogenous category, advocating for diversity (p. 508).
Banking Education	Freire’s term for traditional education that preserves the status quo rather than encouraging critical thought.	Gugelberger draws on Freire to illustrate the role of Third World literature in fostering critical consciousness (p. 514).
Aesthetics of Resistance	A literary style that combines artistic expression with social and political opposition.	Gugelberger refers to Third World literature as inherently resisting oppression through its aesthetics (p. 521).

Contribution of “Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature” by Georg M. Gugelberger to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Postcolonial Theory

• Subversion of Colonial Discourse: Gugelberger’s work critiques the Western literary canon and its exclusion of non-Western voices, aligning with postcolonial theory’s goal of challenging Eurocentric structures. He emphasizes the need to decolonize the canon, proposing that incorporating Third World literature highlights how these texts counter colonial narratives by depicting “significant cultural otherness” (p. 519).
• Response to Colonial and Neocolonial Power: In discussing Frantz Fanon’s ideas on revolutionary literature (p. 513), Gugelberger shows how Third World literature not only opposes colonial oppression but also critiques ongoing neocolonial influences, a core aspect of postcolonial theory that aims to dismantle lingering colonial power structures in literature and culture.

2. Resistance Literature

• Resistance as a Core of Third World Literature: Gugelberger asserts that Third World literature is inherently a form of resistance literature, reflecting the struggles and opposition to oppressive regimes and ideologies. He references Paulo Freire’s concept of “conscienticization” (p. 514), which promotes literature as a means to awaken critical consciousness, advocating for literature that resists “the hegemony of the Western canon” (p. 518).
• Political Dimensions in Literary Form: Gugelberger aligns Third World literature with a political agenda, arguing it “foregrounds its political message” in a way that distinguishes it from mainstream Western literature, which often downplays or conceals its political dimensions (p. 507). This perspective reinforces the idea that resistance literature should not only convey a narrative but also serve as a tool for social and political change.

3. Canon Theory

• Challenge to Canonicity and Canon Formation: By highlighting the Western canon’s limitations, Gugelberger contributes to canon theory by advocating for a revision of what constitutes canonical literature. He states that integrating Third World literature “subverts the present canon,” encouraging a reassessment of literary value that goes beyond Eurocentric standards (p. 518). His work underscores the need for a more inclusive canon that reflects diverse cultural narratives and experiences.
• Homogeneity vs. Heterogeneity in Canon Formation: Gugelberger addresses the tension between homogenizing Third World literature into a single category and recognizing its diversity. He warns against creating a generalized “Third World Literature” category that risks erasing its unique cultural contexts, cautioning that definitions must avoid “the temptation to harmonize homogeneity and heterogeneity” (p. 508). This distinction in canon theory stresses the importance of preserving the distinctiveness of Third World literary traditions.

4. Cultural and Aesthetic Theory

• Aesthetics of Resistance: Gugelberger’s discussion of Third World literature as an “aesthetics of resistance” (p. 521) contributes to cultural and aesthetic theory by presenting literature as a form of social and political defiance. He asserts that Third World literature rejects purely formalist approaches, instead embracing a dialectical approach that intertwines form and content with a resistance to oppression (p. 515). This aligns with Amilcar Cabral’s idea that literature reflects the cultural and political realities of the oppressed (p. 513).
• Realism and Allegory as Vehicles for Political Expression: Gugelberger points to realism and allegory in Third World literature as forms that reveal political realities, contrasting with Western modernism’s focus on formal experimentation. Citing Fredric Jameson’s concept of “national allegory” (p. 518), he argues that Third World narratives often serve as symbolic representations of collective identity and national struggles, enriching cultural and aesthetic theory with a focus on content-driven, community-oriented literature.

5. Minor Literature and Counter-Hegemonic Discourse

• Minor Literature as a Model for Third World Voices: Gugelberger’s analysis of Third World literature resonates with Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of “minor literature,” which creates “an active solidarity” and subverts dominant languages and narratives (p. 520). Third World literature operates as a “counter-hegemonic discourse,” as it challenges Western ideals and amplifies marginalized voices within the global literary landscape (p. 520).
• Dialectical Method and Counter-Narratives: Gugelberger highlights the use of dialectical approaches in Third World literature, which often addresses oppositional themes and critiques Western cultural hegemony. By adopting a “counter-hegemonic” stance, Third World writers foster solidarity among oppressed groups, rejecting “the hegemonic pressures which seek to neutralize them” (p. 520).

Examples of Critiques Through “Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature” by Georg M. Gugelberger

Literary Work	Critique through Gugelberger’s Lens	Relevant Concepts from Gugelberger
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad	Gugelberger would critique Heart of Darkness for its Eurocentric and colonial perspectives, which reduce African characters and culture to mere backdrops for European moral struggles. This reflects what Gugelberger calls the “hegemony of the Western canon,” which often misrepresents or marginalizes non-Western cultures.	Colonialist Discourse, Cultural Otherness, and Geo-Thematics (p. 521).
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe	Gugelberger would view Achebe’s novel as a corrective to colonial narratives like Conrad’s, showing an authentic representation of African life before colonial disruption. It exemplifies resistance literature by using a narrative style that reclaims African identity and voices previously erased by Western literature.	Resistance Literature, Decolonization, and Counter-Hegemonic Discourse (p. 507, 520).
The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon	Fanon’s work would align closely with Gugelberger’s framework, as it calls for cultural decolonization and articulates the psychological effects of colonialism on oppressed societies. Gugelberger highlights Fanon’s work as a manifesto for Third World literature, emphasizing its role in anti-colonial and revolutionary thought.	Political and Cultural Resistance, Postcolonial Theory, and Aesthetics of Resistance (p. 513, 521).
The Old Gringo by Carlos Fuentes	Gugelberger would interpret Fuentes’ novel as an exploration of U.S.-Mexican relations, critiquing Western imperialism and the cultural misunderstandings that arise from it. The narrative urges readers to empathize with Third World perspectives, emphasizing Gugelberger’s call to “learn from the Third World writer” to understand global injustices.	Cultural Otherness, Geo-Thematics, and Responsibility to the Other (p. 519).

Criticism Against “Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature” by Georg M. Gugelberger

• Oversimplification of Western and Third World Literary Binaries: Critics may argue that Gugelberger’s approach oversimplifies the relationship between Western and Third World literature, creating a binary that does not account for the nuanced exchange and mutual influence between these literatures.
• Potential for Essentialism: While attempting to challenge essentialist views in Western canons, Gugelberger’s emphasis on “Third World Literature” as a distinct category might unintentionally reinforce essentialist views by grouping diverse literatures and experiences under a singular label.
• Limited Practical Solutions for Canon Revision: Gugelberger advocates for the inclusion of Third World literature but provides few practical guidelines for integrating these works into existing curricula and canon structures, leaving questions about implementation and academic acceptance unanswered.
• Risk of Marginalizing Individual Identities within Third World Literature: By focusing broadly on “Third World Literature,” Gugelberger may inadvertently overlook the specific national, ethnic, or linguistic identities of these literatures, potentially reducing their complexity and diversity.
• Heavy Emphasis on Political Over Aesthetic Qualities: Gugelberger’s framing of Third World literature as primarily a vehicle for political resistance could be criticized for downplaying the artistic and aesthetic innovations within these works, which are sometimes equally significant.
• Potential for Imposing External Theoretical Frameworks: Critics might argue that by framing Third World literature through Western postcolonial theories, Gugelberger imposes an external structure that may not fully align with the cultural and theoretical perspectives intrinsic to the Third World authors themselves.

Representative Quotations from “Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature” by Georg M. Gugelberger with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The closure is unilateral. For contrary to some who insist on this total difference… ‘Third World Literature’ frequently and necessarily maintains a dialogue with the Western world.” (p. 505)	Gugelberger argues that Third World literature is often unfairly isolated from the canon, yet it interacts dynamically with Western literature, challenging the idea of a strict division between them.
“Third World Literature has not become a part of us because we refuse to legitimize it.” (p. 506)	Here, Gugelberger critiques Western academia for dismissing Third World literature, suggesting that this refusal to legitimize it is a form of cultural gatekeeping.
“We tend to take [literature] for granted; actually, we ought constantly to reexamine it, preferably from the perspective of one who asks the questions ‘By whom?’ ‘For whom?’ ‘Against whom?'” (p. 508)	He advocates for a critical reevaluation of literature through a lens that considers authorship, audience, and purpose, urging readers to consider whose interests are served by specific works.
“Not every piece of writing produced in the geographic Third World is automatically a part of ‘Third World Literature.'” (p. 508)	Gugelberger warns against homogenizing Third World literature, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between works that actively engage with colonial and cultural issues and those that do not.
“Third World literature… is more ‘realistic’ than ‘mainstream’ literature. By ‘realistic’ I mean more ad hominem, more radical in the root sense of the term.” (p. 515)	This quote highlights Gugelberger’s view that Third World literature is often more direct and politically charged, addressing social realities and systemic inequalities that Western literature might overlook.
“Liberation can be considered the authentic theme of all true ‘Third World Literature.'” (p. 514)	He identifies liberation as a central theme in Third World literature, defining it as a form of literature committed to challenging oppression and advocating for independence and freedom.
“The issue then is not to integrate Third World literary works into the canon but to identify with ‘the wretched of the earth’ and to learn from them.” (p. 507)	Gugelberger suggests that instead of merely adding Third World literature to the Western canon, readers should genuinely engage with and learn from these perspectives, respecting their unique contexts.
“Any study of world literature today which avoids considering this phenomenon called ‘Third World Literature’ is bound to be both parochial and fundamentally obsolete.” (p. 512)	He argues that excluding Third World literature from literary studies creates a narrow and outdated worldview, limiting the scope of global literature by ignoring diverse perspectives.
“Third World literature is always overtly political… all literature is covertly political but ‘Third World Literature’ foregrounds its political message.” (p. 507)	Gugelberger contends that while all literature has political undertones, Third World literature explicitly engages with political themes, making its resistance to oppression central to its narrative.
“It is dialectical; freedom and democracy, key terms of Western discourse, are often perceived for what they really are: their opposites.” (p. 515)	He highlights how Third World literature frequently uses dialectical methods to critique Western values, such as freedom and democracy, revealing how these ideals can mask oppression in a colonial context.

Suggested Readings: “Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature” by Georg M. Gugelberger

1. Gugelberger, Georg M. “Decolonizing the Canon: Considerations of Third World Literature.” New Literary History 22.3 (1991): 505-524. https://www.jstor.org/stable/469201
2. Lawrence, Karen, ed. Decolonizing Tradition: New Views of Twentieth-Century” British” Literary Canons. University of Illinois Press, 1992.
3. Burawoy, Michael. “Decolonizing Canons.” Interrogating the Future: Essays in Honour of David Fasenfest 287 (2024): 97.
4. Bacchilega, Cristina. “‘Decolonizing’the Canon: Critical Challenges to Eurocentrism.” The Fairy Tale World. Routledge, 2019. 33-44.
5. Khan, Maryam Wasif. “Empires, Decolonization, and the Canon.” The Routledge Companion to Politics and Literature in English. Routledge, 2023. 74-83.

Introduction: “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

“Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew first appeared in the journal Constellations in 2018, presenting a critical analysis of the limitations of Critical Theory when seen through the lens of decolonial thought. Bartholomew critiques the Eurocentric roots inherent in Critical Theory, particularly its traditional allegiance to a European trajectory of rationality and progress, as initially established by the Frankfurt School. The article explores how theorists like Horkheimer, Adorno, and Habermas, though critical of European rationality, still uphold Europe as a central stage in intellectual history. Bartholomew argues that to genuinely decolonize Critical Theory, one must not simply integrate decolonial insights as a corrective to Eurocentric perspectives; rather, Critical Theory should be reoriented to prioritize and adopt decolonial frameworks. This approach posits that the project of decolonization should go beyond mere inclusion of diverse perspectives and should question the universal applicability of European modernity and progress itself. Bartholomew’s work is significant in literary theory and philosophy as it urges scholars to reassess and potentially realign the scope of Critical Theory to foster dialogues that are more inclusive of marginalized epistemologies from the Global South, thus addressing colonial legacies in theory and methodology.

Summary of “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

• Critical Theory’s Eurocentric Limitations: Bartholomew critiques the Eurocentrism embedded in Critical Theory, noting that it inherently views history and rationality through a European framework. He explains that while Critical Theory critically examines European rationality, it remains tethered to “an account of the history of reason that retains a certain Hegelianism, with Europe being the stage of history” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 2).
• Need for a Decolonial Turn: Bartholomew argues that the necessary reorientation requires a “decolonial turn” where Critical Theory adopts a perspective based in decolonial philosophy rather than simply incorporating decolonial insights as an addendum. He writes, “to attempt to integrate the insights of decolonial thought into Critical Theory…is to engage in the project from the wrong direction” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 3).
• Challenges with Integrating Decolonial Thought: Attempting to reconcile Critical Theory with decolonial perspectives reveals foundational conflicts, particularly around concepts like progress and modernity, as Bartholomew cites Amy Allen’s assertion that decolonial critiques require “a questioning of modernity as concept, which entails a criticism of the concept of progress itself” (Allen, 2016, pp. 8–16).
• The Coloniality of Power: Drawing on Aníbal Quijano’s concept, Bartholomew emphasizes that modernity is inseparable from coloniality, where “coloniality of power” involves not only economic control but also racial hierarchy and Eurocentric subjectivity (Quijano, 2000, p. 533). This idea underlines the argument that Critical Theory must recognize colonialism as foundational to its own structures.
• Critical Theory as a Decolonial Resource: Bartholomew suggests that Critical Theory could be re-appropriated by decolonial thinkers, seeing its critique of reason as valuable when applied outside of European contexts. He notes Enrique Dussel’s integration of Critical Theory, where Dussel “identifies what is valuable in the different iterations of Critical Theory and [applies it] in the philosophy of liberation” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9).
• Moving Beyond Eurocentric Universalism: Bartholomew highlights the issue with Eurocentric universalism, critiquing Critical Theory’s tendency to position Europe as a universal model of rationality. He argues that “universal history must be held to ambivalently, ‘constructed and denied’” (Adorno, 1973, p. 320), advocating for a more pluralistic understanding of rationality informed by diverse cultural perspectives.
• Learning from Indigenous Perspectives: The article also engages with Walter Mignolo’s insights on integrating indigenous worldviews, asserting that a decolonial approach must acknowledge different “cosmologies” of knowledge rather than subsuming them into European rationality. This is illustrated by Mignolo’s example of Subcomandante Marcos’s encounter with Mayan cosmology, where “both histories have their reasons” (Mignolo, 2011, p. 220).
• Decolonial Praxis over Theoretical Dependency: Rather than adapting Critical Theory to incorporate decoloniality, Bartholomew advocates for decolonial thinkers to take charge of their own intellectual traditions, moving beyond theoretical dependency on Europe. He concludes, “It is not the job of decolonial thinkers to fix the errors of European philosophers insofar as they are Eurocentric…this merely reinforces a sort of theoretical dependency on Europe” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 11).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

Literary Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation	Reference
Eurocentrism	The prioritization and centrality of European culture, history, and intellectual tradition, often implying that Europe is the primary site of rationality, progress, and historical significance. Critical Theory is critiqued for its attachment to this perspective, even while criticizing aspects of European rationality.	“It retains within it an account of the history of reason that retains a certain Hegelianism, with Europe being the stage of history” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 2).
Decolonial Turn	A shift in perspective that advocates for viewing Critical Theory through a decolonial lens, rather than integrating decolonial insights into Critical Theory. This turn implies that decolonial insights should form the framework, challenging the Eurocentric foundation.	“If Critical Theory is to be decolonized it must first take on the decolonial perspective and then see what is left of Critical Theory after the shift” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 3).
Coloniality of Power	Concept developed by Aníbal Quijano, describing the persistent hierarchical and racial structures created during colonization, which continue to shape power relations globally. This framework critiques European modernity by linking it to colonial exploitation and racial categorization.	“Coloniality thus refers to… the racial classification of the world’s population via the racialization of relations between the colonizer and the colonized” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9).
Critical Negativity	A concept derived from the first generation of Critical Theory that emphasizes critique as a form of resistance against dominant structures. This negativity is applied by decolonial thinkers to expose and resist Eurocentrism within Critical Theory itself.	“From the first generation of Critical Theory we must recover…Negativity, as part of that materiality a critical negativity” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 10).
Locus of Enunciation	Walter Mignolo’s term, referring to the specific geopolitical, cultural, and historical context from which knowledge is produced and articulated. This concept is central to decolonial thought, which emphasizes perspectives from the Global South.	“The decolonial project requires an interrogation of what he refers to as the loci of enunciation” (Mignolo, 2005, p. xx; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 11).
Cosmology	In decolonial discourse, cosmology refers to distinct worldviews or systems of knowledge. Bartholomew argues that European rationality is just one among many cosmologies, challenging the notion of a universal rationality.	“Once it is understood that both histories have their reasons, it is only an unconscious structure of power that can decide which one is history and which is myth” (Mignolo, 2011, p. 220; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 10).
Universalism	The idea that certain principles, often Eurocentric in origin, are universally applicable. Bartholomew critiques this within Critical Theory, arguing that universalism can obscure and invalidate diverse cultural and historical experiences.	“Universal history must be held to ambivalently, ‘constructed and denied’” (Adorno, 1973, p. 320; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9).
Geopolitics of Knowledge	A concept by Walter Mignolo that addresses how knowledge production is influenced by colonial history and power dynamics. This concept advocates for an acknowledgment of non-European sources of knowledge as equally valuable.	“A Critical Theory beyond the history of Europe proper and within the colonial history of America…becomes decolonial theory” (Mignolo, 2005, p. xx; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 11).
Critical Historiography	The re-examination and reinterpretation of historical narratives, especially regarding colonialism and modernity. This approach critiques Eurocentric historiography by emphasizing the importance of indigenous perspectives and the colonial encounter.	“The uncovering of the reality of Latin America before the conquest…recognizing the reality of indigenous traditions of thought” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 6).
Immanent Critique	A method of critique that seeks to reveal contradictions within a system or theory from within its own logic or assumptions. Bartholomew discusses how decolonial thinkers use this technique to challenge the Eurocentric basis of Critical Theory without fully discarding it.	“Helps us reformulate their [Adorno and Horkheimer’s] understanding of immanent critique” (Zambrana, 2015, p. 111; cited in Bartholomew, 2018, p. 7).

Contribution of “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Critical Theory and Eurocentrism: Bartholomew’s work significantly contributes to the critique of Eurocentrism within Critical Theory by addressing its limitations in fully confronting colonial legacies. He argues that Critical Theory, rooted in the Frankfurt School, retains a Eurocentric bias that positions Europe as the primary locus of rationality and progress. He critiques this tendency, stating that Critical Theory must recognize “its inherent Eurocentrism” to evolve into a truly universalist project (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 2).
2. Decolonial Thought’s Influence on Critical Theory: The article advances Decolonial Theory by proposing that decolonial thought should not merely supplement Critical Theory but should instead reframe its foundational assumptions. Bartholomew suggests that Critical Theory’s efforts to incorporate decolonial insights risk reinforcing Eurocentrism unless they adopt a “decolonial turn,” where “the insights of Critical Theory [are integrated] into decolonial philosophy” (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 3). This approach challenges Critical Theory’s universal claims and calls for a pluralistic framework that honors diverse intellectual traditions.
3. Postcolonial and Decolonial Critique of Modernity: Bartholomew addresses Postcolonial and Decolonial Critiques of Modernity by questioning the universality of European models of progress and modernity. Referring to Amy Allen, he argues that a truly decolonized Critical Theory must “question modernity as a concept, which entails a criticism of the concept of progress itself” (Allen, 2016, pp. 8–16). This perspective challenges traditional assumptions in Critical Theory, which historically foregrounded European experiences of modernity as normative.
4. Geopolitics of Knowledge: Bartholomew builds on Walter Mignolo’s Geopolitics of Knowledge by advocating for a shift from European-centric intellectual traditions to include diverse “loci of enunciation,” which recognizes the importance of knowledge produced in the Global South (Bartholomew, 2018, p. 11). This perspective underscores how intellectual production is shaped by historical power dynamics, aligning with decolonial critiques that urge scholars to “interrogate” these Eurocentric perspectives (Mignolo, 2005, p. xx).
5. Immanent Critique for Decolonial Praxis: Bartholomew engages with Immanent Critique as a method to revise Critical Theory from within, preserving its critique of domination while challenging its Eurocentric roots. Drawing on theorists like Rocio Zambrana, he suggests that “immanent critique” can reveal contradictions in Critical Theory’s universalist claims, making it a valuable tool for decolonial thinkers (Zambrana, 2015, p. 111; Bartholomew, 2018, p. 7). This approach provides a means to utilize elements of Critical Theory in a way that aligns with decolonial objectives.
6. Decoloniality and Identity in Literature: By emphasizing the concept of Coloniality of Power from Aníbal Quijano, Bartholomew contributes to literary theory by addressing how identity and subjectivity in literature are deeply affected by colonial legacies. He notes that “coloniality thus refers to the racial classification of the world’s population via the racialization of relations between the colonizer and the colonized,” which influences how identities are represented and understood in literary narratives (Quijano, 2000, p. 533; Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9). This perspective encourages literary theorists to critique representations of identity through a lens that acknowledges the impact of colonialism.
7. Integration of Indigenous Epistemologies: The article advances Indigenous Epistemologies in Literary Theory by urging Critical Theory to respect and include indigenous perspectives and cosmologies, rather than subsuming them under European rationality. Bartholomew highlights Mignolo’s example of Subcomandante Marcos’s integration of Mayan cosmology, showing that different “cosmologies” of knowledge must be seen as equally valid intellectual traditions (Mignolo, 2011, p. 220; Bartholomew, 2018, p. 10). This integration challenges Eurocentric views and enriches literary analysis with diverse epistemological perspectives.
8. Critique of the Universalist Narrative in Literary Historiography: Bartholomew contributes to Critical Historiography by questioning the universal applicability of European narratives of progress, suggesting a need for a more pluralistic approach to historical narratives in literature. He asserts that “universal history must be held to ambivalently, ‘constructed and denied’” (Adorno, 1973, p. 320; Bartholomew, 2018, p. 9), encouraging scholars to critique historical assumptions in literary texts through a decolonial lens.

Examples of Critiques Through “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

Literary Work	Summary of the Critique	Relevant Concept from Bartholomew’s Work
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad	A decolonial critique would address Conrad’s portrayal of Africa and its people as the “Other” against which European “civilization” is defined. Bartholomew’s approach would challenge the Eurocentric narrative in Conrad’s depiction of Africa as a mysterious, chaotic backdrop for European characters’ moral struggles, critiquing its colonial gaze.	Eurocentrism and the Coloniality of Power – Bartholomew (2018) argues for recognizing the persistence of colonial power structures in literature.
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe	Using Bartholomew’s framework, Achebe’s novel could be seen as a work that critiques the imposition of European values on Igbo society. Achebe’s narrative exposes the harmful effects of colonialism and resists Eurocentric portrayals of Africa. A decolonial reading would emphasize how Achebe centers indigenous knowledge systems, challenging Western conceptions of “progress.”	Loci of Enunciation and Indigenous Epistemologies – Bartholomew (2018) advocates for centering perspectives from the Global South.
Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys	Through Bartholomew’s lens, Rhys’s novel critiques the colonial power dynamics that shape identity and mental health, particularly in Caribbean settings. The protagonist, Antoinette, reflects the “othering” of non-European characters within a European framework, illustrating the destructive effects of colonialism on personal and cultural identity.	Coloniality of Power and Identity – Bartholomew (2018) highlights how colonial structures impact identity and subjectivity.
The Tempest by William Shakespeare	Applying Bartholomew’s ideas, a critique of The Tempest would focus on the depiction of Caliban and his subjugation by Prospero, framing it as an allegory of colonial power. Bartholomew’s critique would emphasize the play’s Eurocentric view of the colonized as inferior, requiring European “civilizing” efforts.	Decolonial Turn and Eurocentric Narratives – Bartholomew (2018) argues that literary critiques must challenge the Eurocentric assumptions inherent in classic texts.

Criticism Against “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

• Over-reliance on Decolonial Frameworks May Undermine Critical Theory’s Established Insights: Critics argue that Bartholomew’s call to reframe Critical Theory through a strictly decolonial lens might lead to an abandonment of valuable insights provided by the Frankfurt School’s original critiques of capitalism, reason, and social power dynamics.
• Risk of Essentializing Eurocentrism: Some scholars contend that Bartholomew’s work may inadvertently essentialize Eurocentrism, treating it as a monolithic concept rather than acknowledging the diversity within European intellectual traditions that critique Eurocentrism from within, such as the works of Adorno and Foucault.
• Limited Practical Pathways for Integrating Decolonial Thought: Critics argue that while Bartholomew highlights the theoretical importance of integrating decolonial thought into Critical Theory, he does not offer specific, actionable steps for doing so, making his proposal appear more abstract than practical.
• Ambiguity in Defining the Decolonial Turn: Bartholomew’s call for a “decolonial turn” is seen as ambiguous and undefined by some critics, who question whether this turn implies a complete rejection of Western theoretical frameworks or a selective integration. This ambiguity may lead to misinterpretations of how Critical Theory could evolve with decolonial insights.
• Potential Oversight of Intersectional Perspectives: Some critics point out that Bartholomew’s focus on decolonial thought may overlook intersectional perspectives, such as gender, sexuality, and class, which are also significant in analyzing Eurocentrism and colonial power structures.
• Risk of Intellectual Dependency on Decolonial Theory: While Bartholomew advocates for moving away from Eurocentric thought, some critics argue that over-reliance on decolonial theory could create a new form of intellectual dependency, limiting Critical Theory’s adaptability to diverse sociocultural contexts.
• Exclusion of Alternative Postcolonial Perspectives: By emphasizing decolonial theory over postcolonial approaches, Bartholomew may exclude significant contributions from postcolonial scholars who critique Eurocentrism but advocate for different solutions or integrations with Western theories.

Representative Quotations from “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“It is the last limitation, its inherent Eurocentrism, that has been most resisted integration…” (p. 2).	Bartholomew highlights the difficulty Critical Theory has in addressing its Eurocentric bias, which limits its ability to be universally applicable and inclusive of non-European perspectives.
“If Critical Theory is to be decolonized it must first take on the decolonial perspective…” (p. 3).	He suggests that decolonizing Critical Theory requires a fundamental shift in perspective, where decolonial insights form the foundation rather than merely supplementing existing theory.
“Coloniality thus refers to… the racial classification of the world’s population…” (p. 9).	This quotation discusses Aníbal Quijano’s concept of coloniality, showing how colonialism established racial hierarchies that still influence power dynamics and cultural narratives globally.
“Universal history must be held to ambivalently, ‘constructed and denied’” (p. 9, citing Adorno, 1973, p. 320).	Citing Adorno, Bartholomew argues that the concept of universal history should be questioned, acknowledging the plurality of histories and perspectives rather than one Eurocentric narrative.
“It is not the job of decolonial thinkers to fix the errors of European philosophers…” (p. 11).	Bartholomew asserts that decolonial thought should not aim to “correct” Eurocentric views but instead should develop independently, creating knowledge from diverse cultural standpoints.
“To attempt to integrate the insights of decolonial thought into Critical Theory is…from the wrong direction” (p. 3).	He emphasizes that decolonial insights should not be superficially integrated into Critical Theory; instead, Critical Theory should be re-envisioned with a decolonial foundation to address its Eurocentrism effectively.
“A Critical Theory beyond the history of Europe proper and within the colonial history of America…becomes decolonial theory” (p. 11, citing Mignolo, 2005, p. xx).	Bartholomew, quoting Mignolo, argues that shifting the focus from European history to colonial histories enables Critical Theory to become genuinely decolonial, re-centering marginalized narratives.
“From the first generation of Critical Theory we must recover…Negativity, as part of that materiality a critical negativity” (p. 10).	He suggests preserving the “critical negativity” from early Critical Theory, as it allows for questioning of dominant narratives and structures, making it a valuable tool for decolonial thought.
“Once it is understood that both histories have their reasons, it is only an unconscious structure of power that can decide which one is history and which is myth” (p. 10, citing Mignolo, 2011, p. 220).	This quotation critiques the Eurocentric hierarchy that labels non-European perspectives as “myth” while treating European narratives as “history,” calling for equal recognition of diverse epistemologies.
“It is because those who would follow Habermas have finally come around to the question of colonization…” (p. 2).	Bartholomew points out the delayed recognition of colonial critiques in Critical Theory, noting that addressing colonialism has only recently become a focus within certain branches of Critical Theory, especially those influenced by Habermas.

Suggested Readings: “Decoloniality and Decolonizing Critical Theory” by Jake M. Bartholomew

1. Bartholomew, Jake M. “Decoloniality and decolonizing Critical Theory.” Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory 25.4 (2018). https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/articles-chpa/68/
2. Betts, Raymond, and Raymond F. Betts. Decolonization. Routledge, 2004.
3. Laenui, Poka. “Processes of decolonization.” Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (2000): 150-160. https://sjsu.edu/people/marcos.pizarro/maestros/Laenui.pdf
4. Memmi, Albert. Decolonization and the Decolonized. U of Minnesota Press, 2006.
5. Duara, Prasenjit, ed. Decolonization: Perspectives from now and then. Routledge, 2004.

Introduction: “What is Ecofeminism?” by Alicia H. Puleo

“What is Ecofeminism?” by Alicia H. Puleo first appeared in 2017 as part of the Quaderns de la Mediterrània, a collection focused on interdisciplinary dialogue between ecology and gender studies. Puleo, a philosopher, uses this essay to lay the foundation for her concept of “critical ecofeminism,” which merges feminist and ecological concerns as a critique of capitalist patriarchy. Central to Puleo’s thesis is the notion that modern capitalist and patriarchal structures prioritize economic gain over ecological stability, driving a model unsustainable for the environment and inequitable for women and marginalized communities. Unlike essentialist ecofeminist theories that associate women with nature based on perceived innate qualities, Puleo’s critical ecofeminism asserts that women’s environmental engagement stems more from socialization and historical caretaking roles rather than biological predetermination. She highlights significant global figures like Berta Cáceres, whose activism exemplifies ecofeminism’s call for environmental justice. Puleo emphasizes that ecofeminism should uphold principles of equality, autonomy, and environmental stewardship, advocating for women’s reproductive rights, food sovereignty, and an ecological ethic that respects life and promotes sustainable development. By questioning traditional gender roles and encouraging an ethics of care inclusive of both men and women, Puleo’s critical ecofeminism represents a pivotal addition to literary theory, challenging not only ecological exploitation but also androcentric ideologies that pervade social and economic systems.

Summary of “What is Ecofeminism?” by Alicia H. Puleo

• Intersection of Feminism and Ecology: Ecofeminism, according to Puleo, is a philosophical and activist framework that merges feminism with environmentalism to critique the “capitalist and patriarchal model” that fuels environmental degradation and social inequality. Puleo argues that ecofeminism counters a “techno-economic model” that prioritizes competitiveness and profit over ecological and social welfare.
• Critical Ecofeminism: Puleo introduces her concept of “critical ecofeminism”, a model that builds on feminist principles while rejecting essentialist views that equate women with nature based on biological or spiritual connections. Instead, she promotes a “constructivist perspective”, asserting that women’s environmental engagement often stems from historical social roles related to caregiving, not from any inherent biological inclination.
• Environmental Justice and Reproductive Rights: Puleo’s ecofeminism emphasizes reproductive rights and food sovereignty as fundamental for sustainable development. She draws attention to the precautionary principle, which she explains as a policy that places the burden of proof on those introducing new products or technologies, thus prioritizing “transparency and democratic participation” in environmental matters.
• Global Climate Crisis and Responsibility: Puleo underscores the urgency of addressing global climate change, noting that environmental degradation disproportionately affects women, especially in marginalized communities. She cites “natural catastrophes” as evidence of a “risk society,” a term coined by sociologist Ulrich Beck to describe a world increasingly threatened by human-made environmental risks.
• Rejecting Gender Stereotypes in Ecofeminism: Puleo rejects the notion that ecofeminism should idealize women’s roles as inherently nurturing or caretaking. Instead, she calls for a “post-gender ethics of care” that values “empathy and attentive care” in both men and women. This ethic, she suggests, should extend beyond humans to animals and the Earth as a whole, promoting a “culture of sustainability” that avoids essentialist definitions of gender.
• Sustainability and Equality: Advocating for a “universalisation of ecological and post-gender ethics of care,” Puleo calls for systemic change in education and societal values, challenging “androcentrism” and “the neoliberal development model.” She critiques androcentrism, the belief that male perspectives and values are the default, as a key factor in the domination and exploitation of both women and nature.
• Ecojustice and Global Solidarity: Puleo stresses that the effects of environmental destruction are felt most acutely by women in the Global South. She notes that “poor women of the so-called ‘South'” are primary victims of environmental harm, often for the benefit of consumer goods in wealthier nations. She advocates for ecojustice and “internationalist feminism” that encompasses environmental issues, arguing for food sovereignty and agroecology as solutions that support both women’s empowerment and ecological balance.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “What is Ecofeminism?” by Alicia H. Puleo

Literary Term/Concept	Description	Relevance in Ecofeminism
Ecofeminism	Intersection of feminism and environmentalism, critiquing patriarchal and capitalist exploitation of nature.	Establishes the foundation of Puleo’s argument, calling for sustainable development and gender equality in ecological practices.
Critical Ecofeminism	A form of ecofeminism that avoids essentialist ideas and is grounded in feminist principles of equality.	Differentiates Puleo’s approach by focusing on social, not biological, motivations for women’s environmental engagement.
Precautionary Principle	Policy placing responsibility on those proposing new technologies to prove they are not harmful.	Advocates for environmental caution and transparency, addressing long-term ecological impacts.
Risk Society	Concept by Ulrich Beck referring to societies increasingly threatened by human-made environmental risks.	Highlights how modern capitalist economies create and exacerbate global ecological risks.
Constructivist Perspective	The view that gender behaviors are socially constructed rather than biologically determined.	Rejects essentialism by suggesting that women’s roles in environmentalism stem from socialized caregiving, not innate nature connections.
Post-Gender Ethics of Care	An ethics that values empathy and caregiving beyond gender stereotypes.	Promotes a sustainable, empathetic ethic for both men and women in environmental and social issues.
Androcentrism	A worldview that centers male perspectives as normative, often sidelining female and alternative perspectives.	Critiques traditional power structures, framing male-dominant perspectives as a core issue in environmental degradation and exploitation.
Interculturalism	Learning from sustainable practices across different cultures without blindly adopting them.	Supports ecofeminism’s call for a collaborative, global approach to environmentalism without essentializing cultural traditions.
Ecojustice	A concept linking social justice and environmental protection, focusing on equity for marginalized groups.	Emphasizes that poor women, particularly in the Global South, bear the brunt of ecological exploitation by wealthier nations.
Food Sovereignty	The right of communities to control their own food systems, including sustainable agricultural practices.	Highlights ecofeminism’s alignment with sustainable practices that empower communities, especially women.
Technomania	An uncritical faith in technology as a universal solution to problems.	Critiques reliance on technological fixes, promoting instead a balanced approach to ecology and human rights.
Liberty, Equality, and Sustainability	Puleo’s proposed values as guiding principles for an ecofeminist future.	Summarizes the ethical foundation of ecofeminism, integrating feminist and environmental ideals into a cohesive worldview.

Contribution of “What is Ecofeminism?” by Alicia H. Puleo to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “What is Ecofeminism?” by Alicia H. Puleo

Literary Work	Ecofeminist Critique through Puleo’s Lens
“The Secret Garden” by Frances Hodgson Burnett	This novel’s transformation of a neglected garden into a space of renewal can be analyzed through Puleo’s concept of ecofeminism as a return to empathy and care for nature. However, Puleo might critique the book’s limited perspective, which fails to address broader systemic ecological issues tied to capitalist exploitation.
“The Overstory” by Richard Powers	Through Puleo’s lens, The Overstory would be praised for its portrayal of interconnectedness between humans and nature, aligning with her “post-gender ethics of care”. However, Puleo might argue that the novel could deepen its critique of capitalist exploitation by explicitly connecting environmental degradation to patriarchal structures.
“Wide Sargasso Sea” by Jean Rhys	Puleo’s ecofeminism could be applied to critique the exploitation of both land and women in colonial contexts, as seen in Wide Sargasso Sea. She would likely emphasize the concept of “ecojustice” for women in marginalized communities, illustrating how the colonial and patriarchal oppression of women parallels ecological destruction.
“Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson	Carson’s foundational environmental text aligns closely with Puleo’s ecofeminist ideas, especially her critique of “technomania” and unchecked industrialization. Puleo would commend Carson’s advocacy for the “precautionary principle” but might also advocate for more explicit inclusion of gender perspectives in the text.

Criticism Against “What is Ecofeminism?” by Alicia H. Puleo

• Limited Engagement with Indigenous Perspectives: Critics might argue that Puleo’s framework does not sufficiently incorporate Indigenous ecofeminist perspectives, which offer alternative understandings of the relationship between gender, nature, and sustainability.
• Potential Overemphasis on European Policies: Puleo’s focus on the European Union’s precautionary principle and other EU-centric policies may be seen as narrow, potentially neglecting other cultural and geopolitical approaches to ecofeminism and environmental justice.
• Ambiguity Around Practical Implementation: While Puleo’s theories are intellectually rigorous, some critics could contend that they lack concrete, actionable steps for applying ecofeminism in real-world ecological and feminist activism, leaving readers with idealistic rather than pragmatic insights.
• Tension with Essentialist Ecofeminism: Some ecofeminist scholars support a more spiritual or essentialist view that women are inherently closer to nature. Puleo’s rejection of these views may alienate those who see essentialist ecofeminism as a valuable and empowering approach.
• Risk of Diminishing Intersectionality: Puleo’s focus on patriarchal and capitalist structures may inadvertently overlook other intersectional factors, such as race and class, that significantly shape women’s experiences with environmental issues.
• Over-reliance on Western Philosophical Frameworks: Puleo’s critical ecofeminism leans heavily on Enlightenment principles of liberty, equality, and autonomy. Critics might argue that this reliance could exclude or undervalue non-Western ecological philosophies and feminist frameworks.
• Potential Overemphasis on Gender: Some environmental theorists may critique Puleo’s focus on gender dynamics as potentially detracting from broader ecological concerns, risking the reduction of environmentalism to a gendered issue rather than a global, interdisciplinary challenge.

Representative Quotations from “What is Ecofeminism?” by Alicia H. Puleo with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Ecofeminism is the thought and praxis that addresses this double-sided issue.”	This quotation encapsulates ecofeminism as both a theory and practice, aiming to address interconnected environmental and social justice issues, especially concerning women and marginalized groups.
“Critical ecofeminism… eludes the dangers that renouncing the legacy of Modernity entails for women.”	Puleo emphasizes a form of ecofeminism grounded in Enlightenment values of equality and autonomy, aiming to avoid essentialist or regressive approaches that could undermine feminist gains in modern society.
“From a constructivist perspective of gender subjectivity, we can consider that women’s interest in caring for nature is not an automatic mechanism.”	She argues against essentialist views of ecofeminism, asserting that women’s connection to nature is socially constructed rather than inherent, thereby challenging gender stereotypes within the environmental movement.
“It is time to demand, teach and share attitudes, roles, and virtues… [to] condemn power relations.”	This call for a critical ethics of care underscores the need to recognize and transform power imbalances that harm both the environment and women, proposing a shift in societal attitudes toward empathy and sustainability.
“Liberty, equality, and sustainability… express the core of the conviction that another world is possible.”	Puleo identifies these principles as foundational to ecofeminism, envisioning an ideal society where environmental and social justice coexist in harmony, building a hopeful vision for future feminist and ecological activism.
“The burden of proof falls on those who seek to introduce the new product or activity, not those potentially affected.”	By advocating for the precautionary principle, Puleo emphasizes the responsibility of innovators to prove their products are safe, protecting society from harmful technological advances driven by capitalist profit motives.
“Poor women of the so-called ‘South’ are the first victims of the destruction of the environment.”	This statement highlights ecofeminism’s focus on environmental justice, showing how ecological degradation disproportionately affects marginalized women in developing regions, linking environmental issues with global inequalities.
“We must attain the self-awareness of belonging to the fabric of the multiple and multiform life of the planet.”	Here, Puleo calls for a broader awareness of interconnectedness with nature, a shift from anthropocentrism to an ecological consciousness that respects and protects all life forms, not just human interests.
“Technology cannot be a new idol before which we prostrate ourselves, renouncing critical thought.”	Critiquing technomania, Puleo cautions against blind faith in technological solutions, advocating for a balanced approach that integrates critical thinking and ethical considerations in technological and environmental decisions.
“We need a reconceptualization of the human being that integrates reason and emotion, an extended moral feeling.”	Puleo advocates for a shift from patriarchal dualism, which separates reason from emotion, to a balanced humanism that respects both logical and empathetic responses to the ecological crisis, suggesting a foundation for sustainable ethics.

Suggested Readings: “What is Ecofeminism?” by Alicia H. Puleo

1. Leone, Maryanne L., and Shanna Lino. “Spanish Ecofeminism.” A Companion to Spanish Environmental Cultural Studies, edited by Luis I. Prádanos, Boydell & Brewer, 2023, pp. 169–76. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2p40rnm.22. Accessed 1 Nov. 2024.
2. Puleo, Alicia H. “What is ecofeminism.” Quaderns de la Mediterrània 25 (2017): 27-34.
3. Puleo, Alicia H., and Verónica Perales Blanco. Claves ecofeministas: Para rebeldes que aman a la Tierra ya los animales. Madrid: Plaza y Valdés, 2019.
4.