“Ecofeminism: An Overview And Discussion Of Positions And Arguments” by Val Plumwood: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Ecofeminism: An Overview And Discussion Of Positions And Arguments” by Val Plumwood

“Ecofeminism: An Overview and Discussion of Positions and Arguments” by Val Plumwood first appeared in the Australasian Journal of Philosophy in June 1986 (Supplement to Vol. 64). This critical review article examines the connections between the domination of women and nature, a theme central to ecofeminism. Plumwood explores the conceptual framework linking these forms of domination, emphasizing how traditional dualisms—such as mind/body and human/nature—have reinforced patriarchal structures. The article dissects the philosophical underpinnings of ecofeminism, categorizing theorists into three main groups based on their focus on classical philosophy, Enlightenment science, or sexual difference. While Plumwood critiques gaps and ambiguities in the literature, she also highlights the value of ecofeminism in revealing the deep-seated structures of domination in Western thought, making this work a significant contribution to feminist and ecological literary theory.

Summary of “Ecofeminism: An Overview And Discussion Of Positions And Arguments” by Val Plumwood

• Introduction to Ecofeminism’s Core Theme: Plumwood introduces ecofeminism as exploring “the link between the domination of women and the domination of nature” and notes how this theme has emerged in various literary forms, including philosophy, politics, and activism (p. 120).
• Initial Parallels between Women and Nature: The article identifies “striking initial parallels” between how women and nature are treated, especially their instrumental roles, valued primarily for their utility to others, such as males in the case of women and humans in the case of nature (p. 120).
• Critique of Ecofeminism’s Philosophical Gaps: Plumwood critiques the existing ecofeminist literature, noting that “many serious difficulties” exist in current positions, and there is a “need to clarify many of the key concepts” and distinguish between different ecofeminist arguments (p. 120).
• Three Major Groups of Ecofeminist Thought: Plumwood divides ecofeminists into three categories:
  1. Those who trace the problem to dualisms from classical philosophy (e.g., Rosemary Radford Ruether).
  2. Those who attribute the problem to the rise of mechanistic science during the Enlightenment.
  3. Those who explain it based on sexually differentiated consciousness (p. 121).
• Rosemary Radford Ruether’s Contribution: Ruether’s work is highlighted as foundational, especially her analysis of “transcendent dualism”, which separates spirit and body, and how this division is mirrored in the subjugation of women and nature (p. 122).
• Problems with the Dualism Thesis: Plumwood raises issues with “dualism”, arguing that it is not sufficiently clarified in the literature. She questions whether patriarchy led to transcendental dualism or whether pre-existing structures of domination reinforced dualism (p. 123).
• Mechanistic Science as a Root Cause: Mechanistic science is identified as a factor that deepened the nature/human split, contributing to the exploitation of nature and women. Plumwood mentions Carolyn Merchant’s work in The Death of Nature to discuss this shift (p. 126).
• Role of Difference Theories in Ecofeminism: Plumwood acknowledges that some ecofeminists, like Mary O’Brien, link the domination of women and nature to reproductive consciousness and “different experiences” stemming from biological differences (p. 129).
• Call for Clarification and Advancement: The article concludes with a call for more “clarification” of ecofeminist arguments, particularly regarding mind/body and nature/human dualisms. Plumwood urges that ecofeminism has the potential for “integrating” critical perspectives but requires further development (p. 137).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Ecofeminism: An Overview And Discussion Of Positions And Arguments” by Val Plumwood

Term/Concept	Explanation	Reference/Context from Plumwood’s Article
Dualism	A concept where two elements are seen as opposites, often with one considered superior to the other.	Plumwood critiques ecofeminism’s use of “transcendent dualism”, such as mind/body and nature/human (p. 122).
Hierarchical Dualism	A form of dualism where one side is considered superior and the other inferior.	Referenced by Rosemary Radford Ruether to describe the subjugation of body and nature to mind and spirit (p. 122).
Instrumentalization	Treating something as a mere tool or means to an end, without intrinsic value.	Women and nature are both viewed through an “instrumental role”, valued only for their usefulness to others (p. 120).
Transcendence	The concept of going beyond the physical or material realm, often associated with the spiritual or rational.	Discussed in the context of “transcendent dualism”, where mind or spirit transcends nature and the body (p. 122).
Immanence	The idea of being inherent or existing within the physical world, often opposed to transcendence.	Plumwood contrasts “immanence” with transcendence, especially in discussions of women’s identification with nature (p. 123).
Mechanistic Science	A view of the natural world as a machine, governed by laws of cause and effect, emphasizing control and domination.	Mechanistic science, especially during the Enlightenment, is seen as deepening the domination of nature and women (p. 126).
Patriarchy	A social system in which men hold primary power, often connected with the subordination of women.	Plumwood critiques patriarchy for its role in both “sexual domination” and the “oppression of nature” (p. 123).
Feminist Metaphysics	A branch of feminist theory that examines fundamental concepts such as being, existence, and reality from a feminist perspective.	Plumwood explores how ecofeminism contributes to an “alternative metaphysics” that integrates body and mind (p. 131).
Human/Nature Dichotomy	The separation of humans from nature, often leading to the domination of the natural world.	The human/nature dichotomy is central to ecofeminism, critiquing how humans view nature as inferior (p. 131).
Mind/Body Split	The philosophical division between mind (rational, superior) and body (physical, inferior).	Central to Ruether’s analysis of Western dualism, where body and nature are subordinated to mind and spirit (p. 122).
Feminine/Masculine Dichotomy	A gendered division where traits associated with masculinity are valued more than those associated with femininity.	Plumwood critiques the masculine/feminine dichotomy, particularly its alignment with mind/body and human/nature splits (p. 131).
Ecofeminism	A movement that links feminism with environmentalism, highlighting the connections between the oppression of women and nature.	Plumwood provides an overview of ecofeminism, critiquing its gaps and potential contributions to philosophy (p. 120).
Romanticism	A movement that emphasizes nature, emotion, and the sublime, often critiqued for idealizing women and nature.	Romantic ecofeminism is critiqued for “romanticizing” the connection between women and nature (p. 134).
Epistemology	The study of knowledge and how it is acquired. In ecofeminism, it examines how patriarchal knowledge systems marginalize women and nature.	Plumwood discusses “political epistemology”, exploring how dominant knowledge systems reinforce dualisms (p. 130).

Contribution of “Ecofeminism: An Overview And Discussion Of Positions And Arguments” by Val Plumwood to Literary Theory/Theories

• Feminist Literary Theory:
  Plumwood critiques the “masculine/feminine dichotomy” and how it mirrors the domination of women and nature. By addressing the link between gender oppression and environmental degradation, the article expands feminist literary theory to consider environmental exploitation as part of the feminist struggle (p. 120). This aligns with feminist literary approaches that critique patriarchal structures in literature and society.
• Ecofeminism:
  As an essential contribution to ecofeminist theory, Plumwood’s article explores the parallels between the subjugation of women and nature. She critiques existing ecofeminist literature for not sufficiently clarifying the “conceptual links” between these forms of domination, thus calling for more rigorous theoretical frameworks within ecofeminism (p. 120). This helps sharpen the theoretical basis of ecofeminism in literary studies.
• Poststructuralist Theory:
  By questioning traditional “dualistic structures” such as mind/body and human/nature, Plumwood contributes to poststructuralist theory, which seeks to deconstruct binary oppositions and hierarchies. Her critique of dualism mirrors poststructuralist efforts to break down fixed categories, showing how such dualisms uphold systems of power (p. 122).
• Environmental Literary Criticism (Ecocriticism):
  Plumwood’s integration of ecological issues into feminist discourse contributes to ecocriticism, which examines literature’s relationship to the natural world. Her critique of “mechanistic science” and its role in alienating humans from nature aligns with ecocritical concerns about environmental degradation and exploitation (p. 126).
• Intersectionality in Feminist Theory:
  The article supports intersectional feminist theory by showing how the oppression of women is linked to other forms of domination, such as environmental destruction. Plumwood emphasizes that these forms of oppression are “interconnected” and mutually reinforcing, which aligns with intersectionality’s focus on overlapping systems of power (p. 131).
• Critical Theory:
  Plumwood’s critique of the “instrumental role” of both women and nature in Western thought relates to critical theory, particularly the Frankfurt School’s critique of instrumental reason. By exposing how women and nature are valued only for their utility to others, Plumwood connects ecofeminism to broader critical discussions on domination and power (p. 120).
• Psychoanalytic Feminism:
  Through her analysis of “reproductive consciousness” and the psychological experiences of women, Plumwood engages with psychoanalytic feminist theory, which examines how gender roles are formed through biological and psychological differences (p. 129). This theoretical angle highlights how patriarchal societies exploit women’s reproductive roles in their conceptual frameworks.
• Marxist Feminism:
  Plumwood critiques ecofeminist strands that “masculinize” feminism by integrating women into male-dominated economic and political structures without challenging the underlying capitalist-patriarchal system (p. 130). This aligns with Marxist feminist theory, which critiques capitalism’s role in perpetuating gender oppression and exploitation of nature.
• Romanticism and Literary Theory:
  Plumwood warns against “romantic” ecofeminism, which idealizes women’s connection to nature. Her critique refines Romantic literary theory by opposing the uncritical acceptance of women’s association with nature and urges for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between gender and the environment (p. 134).

Examples of Critiques Through “Ecofeminism: An Overview And Discussion Of Positions And Arguments” by Val Plumwood

Literary Work	Critique Using Val Plumwood’s Ecofeminism	Relevant Concept from Plumwood’s Article
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818)	The novel can be critiqued for its portrayal of science as a masculine, dominating force that seeks to control and manipulate nature. Frankenstein’s act of creation exemplifies the mechanistic science Plumwood criticizes, where nature is seen as something to be mastered rather than respected.	Plumwood critiques “mechanistic science” and its role in the exploitation of nature (p. 126).
William Wordsworth’s Tintern Abbey (1798)	Wordsworth’s romanticized view of nature can be critiqued through Plumwood’s warning against romantic ecofeminism, which idealizes nature without acknowledging the complex relationship between women and nature. His depiction of nature as nurturing and sublime aligns with the romantic position Plumwood critiques.	Plumwood critiques “romantic” forms of ecofeminism for reinforcing dualisms (p. 134).
Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale (1985)	The novel’s portrayal of women as reduced to their reproductive roles under a patriarchal regime can be analyzed through Plumwood’s discussion of the instrumentalization of women and nature. The regime’s control of women’s bodies reflects the hierarchical dualism between men (spirit) and women (body/nature).	Plumwood critiques the “instrumental role” assigned to both women and nature (p. 120).
Toni Morrison’s Beloved (1987)	Morrison’s exploration of the bodily and spiritual suffering of women, particularly Black women, can be critiqued using Plumwood’s analysis of transcendental dualism. The novel disrupts the mind/body and human/nature dualisms by emphasizing women’s trauma, bodily experience, and connection to the land as sources of both oppression and healing.	Plumwood highlights the need to break down “transcendent dualism” and mind/body split (p. 122).

Criticism Against “Ecofeminism: An Overview And Discussion Of Positions And Arguments” by Val Plumwood

• Lack of Practical Solutions:
  While Plumwood provides a thorough critique of ecofeminist literature, the article does not offer concrete, practical solutions for overcoming the dualisms and structures of domination it critiques. This can leave readers without actionable guidance for applying the theory in real-world contexts.
• Overemphasis on Dualism:
  Plumwood’s heavy focus on “transcendent dualism” may overlook other important social, political, and economic factors that contribute to the oppression of women and nature. This emphasis might lead to a narrow understanding of the ecofeminist struggle, ignoring more intersectional approaches that incorporate race, class, and colonialism.
• Complexity and Accessibility:
  The theoretical language and in-depth philosophical analysis used throughout the article might make the work difficult to access for readers unfamiliar with academic philosophy or feminist theory. The critique of “dualism”, for instance, is not fully clarified, which may alienate a broader audience looking for a more straightforward analysis (p. 123).
• Ambiguity in Position on Difference Feminism:
  Plumwood criticizes “romantic” ecofeminism for idealizing women’s connection to nature, but at times, she seems to support feminist perspectives that emphasize women’s unique experiences (p. 134). This ambiguity can confuse readers about her stance on difference feminism, which values women’s distinct roles and characteristics.
• Neglect of Cultural and Historical Diversity:
  The article primarily focuses on Western philosophical traditions and does not sufficiently address the diverse cultural or historical contexts in which ecofeminism might take different forms. Critics might argue that her analysis fails to engage with non-Western perspectives on the relationship between women and nature.
• Undeveloped Alternatives to Dualism:
  Plumwood calls for an “alternative epistemology” that integrates reason and emotion, intellect and senses, but she does not fully develop or articulate what this alternative might look like in practice (p. 131). This leaves a gap in her critique, as she challenges dominant structures but does not propose a fully fleshed-out alternative framework.

Representative Quotations from “Ecofeminism: An Overview And Discussion Of Positions And Arguments” by Val Plumwood with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The last decade has seen the appearance of a body of literature whose theme is the link between the domination of women and the domination of nature.” (p. 120)	This introduces the core theme of the article: the conceptual and practical connection between the oppression of women and the exploitation of nature.
“The traditional role of both women and nature has been conceived as an instrumental one.” (p. 120)	Plumwood critiques how both women and nature are valued only for their utility, serving others (e.g., men or humans), which underpins their subordination.
“What can then be salvaged from ecofeminism is a position which sheds valuable light on the conceptual structure of domination.” (p. 120)	Although ecofeminism has its weaknesses, Plumwood believes it reveals important insights into the systems of domination and oppression in Western thought.
“There are major gaps in the arguments for the position, a need to clarify many of the key concepts.” (p. 120)	Plumwood critiques the lack of clarity and coherence in existing ecofeminist literature, suggesting that many of its key ideas require further development.
“Exponents of ecofeminism can be divided into three groups.” (p. 121)	She classifies ecofeminist thinkers into three categories based on their approach to explaining the connection between the oppression of women and nature.
“The concept of ‘transcendent dualism’… regards consciousness as transcending visible nature and the bodily sphere as inferior.” (p. 122)	Plumwood critiques “transcendent dualism”, which prioritizes mind over body and spirit over nature, reinforcing hierarchical structures that oppress both women and nature.
“Mechanism rendered nature effectively dead, inert and manipulable from without.” (p. 127)	Here, Plumwood critiques mechanistic science for reducing nature to a lifeless, controllable entity, further justifying human domination over it.
“Romantic ecofeminism can still be found in some contemporary romantic ecological positions.” (p. 134)	Plumwood warns against romanticizing women’s connection to nature, arguing that this romanticism reinforces problematic dualisms rather than overcoming them.
“The human/nature dichotomy must be up for renegotiation along with the masculine/feminine dichotomy.” (p. 135)	She advocates for an integrated critique that challenges both gender and environmental hierarchies simultaneously, emphasizing the need to break down dualistic thinking.
“Any really thoroughgoing feminism must also be a critical ecofeminism.” (p. 135)	Plumwood argues that feminist theory must be ecofeminist in nature, as the liberation of women is intrinsically linked to challenging environmental oppression.

Suggested Readings: “Ecofeminism: An Overview And Discussion Of Positions And Arguments” by Val Plumwood

1. Gruen, Lori. Hypatia, vol. 7, no. 3, 1992, pp. 216–20. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3809887. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.
2. FIELD, TERRI. “IS THE BODY ESSENTIAL FOR ECOFEMINISM?” Organization & Environment, vol. 13, no. 1, 2000, pp. 39–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26161543. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.
3. Plumwood, Val. “Nature, Self, and Gender: Feminism, Environmental Philosophy, and the Critique of Rationalism.” Hypatia, vol. 6, no. 1, 1991, pp. 3–27. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810030. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.
4. Birkeland, Janis. “Ecofeminism: Linking Theory and Practice.” Ecofeminism, edited by Greta Gaard, Temple University Press, 1993, pp. 13–59. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bt5pf.5. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.