Introduction: “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol J. Adams
“Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol J. Adams first appeared in Hypatia in the Spring of 1991 (Vol. 6, No. 1), published by Wiley on behalf of Hypatia, Inc. In this groundbreaking essay, Adams critiques the omission of animals from ecofeminist discourse, arguing that the domination of animals is inherently linked to the broader domination of nature and women under patriarchy. She examines six possible explanations for why ecofeminism has not fully integrated the issue of animal rights and challenges the patriarchal ideologies that treat animals as instruments for human use. Adams emphasizes the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression, advocating for an inclusive ecofeminist praxis that recognizes animals as integral to both ethical considerations and environmental sustainability. This work has become foundational in the fields of ecofeminism and literary theory, offering critical insights into how gender, ecology, and animal rights intersect.
Summary of “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol J. Adams
- The Inadequacy of Contemporary Ecofeminism to Address Animal Domination
- Adams argues that contemporary ecofeminist discourse fails to give sufficient attention to the domination of animals as a critical aspect of the broader domination of nature and women. She points out that while ecofeminism connects the exploitation of women and nature, it often “fails to give consistent conceptual place to the domination of animals”.
- Six Ecofeminist Responses to Animal Issues
- Adams examines six possible responses ecofeminists might give for not incorporating animal concerns into their analysis. Each response reflects varying degrees of engagement with animal rights and liberation, from full recognition to “persistent patriarchal ideology regarding animals as instruments”.
- Ecofeminism’s Historical Connection to Animal Rights
- Adams traces the historical ties between feminism and vegetarianism in ecofeminist communities, particularly those of the mid-1970s. She highlights early feminist texts and activist efforts, such as the Cambridge-Boston women’s community, where feminists linked the oppression of women to the oppression of animals.
- 4. The Environmental and Ethical Consequences of Meat Production
- Ecofeminism must address the environmental consequences of eating animals, including ecological degradation and the connection between meat production and environmental crises. Adams cites environmental statistics such as the fact that “half of all water consumed in the United States is used in the crops fed to livestock” to highlight the hidden costs of meat consumption.
- 5. The Social Construction of Animals as Edible Bodies
- A critical part of Adams’ analysis is the social construction of animals as edible. She critiques the “logic of domination” that treats animals as “edible bodies” and argues that this reflects deeper patriarchal ideologies that devalue both women and animals as mere objects for exploitation.
- 6. The Relational Hunt and Ecofeminist Ethics
- Adams also discusses the idea of the relational hunt, where some ecofeminists argue that killing animals can be ethical if done with respect and reciprocity. However, she critiques this stance, suggesting it still perpetuates the notion that “animals are instrumentalities” and “edible bodies”, and questions whether such practices are genuinely compatible with ecofeminist values.
- 7. Vegetarians and Ecofeminist Autonomy
- The essay concludes by advocating for a shift in how ecofeminists understand autonomy, urging them to question the cultural construction of animals as food and to redefine “I-ness” in ways that do not rely on the domination of animals. Adams emphasizes the potential of ecofeminist vegetarianism as a path toward more ethical and sustainable relationships with the natural world.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol J. Adams
| Literary Term/Concept | Explanation | Reference from the Text |
| Dualism | Refers to the division of two opposing concepts, such as nature/culture, male/female, human/animal. Ecofeminism critiques how these binaries reinforce domination. | Adams critiques the “persistent patriarchal ideology regarding animals as instruments”, arguing that animals are often positioned as the other in dualistic thinking. |
| Logic of Domination | A framework where domination is justified by a hierarchical superiority of one group (e.g., men over women, humans over animals). | Adams argues that the “logic of domination” justifies the exploitation of animals, linking it to broader patriarchal systems of power that also oppress women. |
| Absent Referent | A concept Adams uses to describe how animals are removed from the conceptualization of meat, allowing humans to consume animals without acknowledging them as sentient beings. | Adams explains how animals become the “absent referent” in meat consumption: animals disappear conceptually, turning into “meat” and facilitating the continued consumption of their bodies without moral or emotional engagement. |
| Ontology of Edibility | The idea that animals are culturally and socially constructed as edible bodies, reinforcing their exploitation and objectification. | Adams critiques the “ontologizing of animals as edible bodies”, where animals are seen primarily as food rather than as beings with intrinsic value, sustaining their oppression under patriarchal culture. |
| Praxis | The practical application of theory, often in activism or social movements. In ecofeminism, it refers to the integration of ethical practices, such as vegetarianism, to resist domination. | Ecofeminists emphasize praxis, including actions like vegetarianism, as critical to the movement. Adams notes that “vegetarianism is one of the qualities of ecofeminist praxis” alongside other sustainable practices. |
| Patriarchal Ideology | A system of beliefs that privileges men and masculinity, reinforcing dominance over women, animals, and nature. | Adams critiques “patriarchal ideology” that treats both women and animals as objects to be dominated and instrumentalized, suggesting that this ideology underpins both sexism and speciesism. |
| Ecological Feminism | A feminist movement that links the domination of women to the exploitation of nature, critiquing systems that oppress both. | Adams identifies ecological feminism as the theoretical framework that challenges the “interconnected subordination of women and nature”, calling for an integrated approach that includes animal liberation. |
| Interconnected Oppressions | The concept that different forms of oppression (sexism, speciesism, racism, environmental degradation) are linked and must be addressed together. | Adams emphasizes that “the domination of nature is linked to the domination of women” and that both must be eradicated, including the “domination of animals”, as part of this network of interconnected oppressions. |
| Feminist Epistemology | A perspective that values women’s ways of knowing, often emphasizing experience, intuition, and relational knowledge over abstract, patriarchal frameworks. | Adams draws on feminist epistemology when highlighting how women in the ecofeminist movement relate to animals and nature, emphasizing “first-person narrative” and embodied knowledge over traditional, detached modes of thinking. |
| Social Construction | The idea that much of what we perceive as natural (such as gender roles or meat consumption) is actually created by social forces and cultural norms. | Adams critiques the “social construction of animals as edible”, where cultural practices normalize eating animals as natural, even though it is a socially constructed practice that can be challenged and changed. |
Contribution of “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol J. Adams to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Ecofeminism and Literary Theory
Contribution: Adams positions ecofeminism as a crucial theoretical framework that links the exploitation of nature with the oppression of women, while urging ecofeminists to fully incorporate animal rights into their critique. She emphasizes that the “domination of animals is linked to the domination of nature and women”, broadening the scope of ecofeminism to include animals as a key subject.
Impact on Literary Theory:
- Expands ecofeminism to critique the “persistent patriarchal ideology” that not only subjugates women but also treats animals as objects, thereby connecting literary analysis of gender and nature to speciesism and animal studies.
- Encourages ecofeminist scholars to include animals as subjects in literary criticism, advocating for a more inclusive ecofeminist praxis that interrogates cultural texts which normalize animal exploitation.
Reference: “Ecofeminism confronts the issue of animals’ suffering and incorporates it into a larger critique of the maltreatment of the natural world.”
Contribution: Adams extends feminist theory by critiquing the logic of domination that justifies both the oppression of women and the subjugation of animals. She draws connections between women’s oppression and animals’ objectification, such as in metaphors like “women as meat”, a concept she explores in her work, The Sexual Politics of Meat.
Impact on Literary Theory:
- Adams’ work challenges feminist literary theory to consider how cultural texts use metaphors that equate women with animals (e.g., women as “pieces of meat”), reinforcing patriarchal objectification.
- Feminist theory is urged to adopt a more intersectional approach by recognizing how speciesism intersects with sexism, expanding the feminist critique to include the ways animals are commodified in literature and culture.
Reference: “Look at the way women have been treated. We’ve been completely controlled, raped, not given any credibility… It’s the same thing with animals.”
3. Poststructuralism and Deconstruction
Contribution: Adams engages with poststructuralist ideas, particularly through her concept of the “absent referent”, where animals are conceptually removed from the process of eating meat. This mirrors poststructuralist critiques of language and meaning, where the signifier (meat) obscures the reality of the signified (the animal).
Impact on Literary Theory:
- Contributes to poststructuralist and deconstructionist theory by showing how language creates ideological absences—in this case, how the term “meat” erases the reality of the animal’s life and suffering.
- Adams’ absent referent theory calls for a deconstruction of language that normalizes violence, pushing scholars to question the ontological erasure of animals in both literary texts and societal discourses.
Reference: “Animals in name and body are made absent as animals for meat to exist… a dead body replaces the live animal.”
4. Critical Animal Studies
Contribution: Adams’ work is foundational for the field of Critical Animal Studies, a branch of literary and cultural theory that examines how animals are represented in texts and how their lives are affected by human practices. By integrating animal liberation into ecofeminism, Adams encourages scholars to critique literary depictions of animals as objects of human use.
Impact on Literary Theory:
- Critical Animal Studies benefits from Adams’ work as it provides a framework for analyzing the cultural and literary construction of animals as objects, commodities, and food.
- This theory also pushes for a rethinking of animals in literature, urging scholars to challenge texts that perpetuate the view of animals as “edible bodies” and to critique the ethics of animal representations.
Reference: “Animals are ontologized as edible bodies… This ideology keeps animals absent from our understanding of patriarchal ideology and makes us resistant to having animals made present.”
5. Marxist Literary Criticism and Class Critique
Contribution: Adams critiques how capitalist production reinforces the exploitation of both women and animals, drawing connections between the commodification of animals and class-based forms of oppression. She highlights how meat production is tied to capitalist consumption, impacting both the environment and working-class laborers.
Impact on Literary Theory:
- Adams’ integration of Marxist critique into her analysis of animal exploitation highlights how capitalist structures treat animals as commodities, which can be applied to the critique of literary texts that reflect or support capitalist ideologies.
- Class-based oppression is linked to both the exploitation of animals in industrial farming and the women who often work in these exploitative industries (e.g., poultry workers).
Reference: “Eating (a dead) chicken is disassociated from the experience of black women who, as ‘lung gunners,’ must each hour scrape the insides of 5,000 chickens’ cavities.”
Contribution: Although less explicitly tied to postcolonial theory, Adams critiques how certain cultural practices, including hunting and animal exploitation, are romanticized through a Western patriarchal lens. This can be extended to postcolonial critiques of how indigenous practices are co-opted or misrepresented in environmental and feminist discourses.
Impact on Literary Theory:
- Postcolonial theory can apply Adams’ critique to analyze how colonial and capitalist systems appropriate indigenous practices, particularly those that romanticize hunting cultures while ignoring nonviolent, plant-based traditions.
- This theory also critiques how Western ideologies enforce dominion over both colonized peoples and animals.
Reference: “Why do environmentalists gravitate to illustrations from Native American cultures that were hunting rather than horticultural and predominantly vegetarian?”
Examples of Critiques Through “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol J. Adams
| Literary Work | Brief Summary | Ecofeminist Critique Using Carol J. Adams’ Framework |
| Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein | A story about Dr. Frankenstein, who creates a living being from dead body parts, only to abandon it, leading to disastrous consequences for both creator and creation. | Through an Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals lens, the Creature can be viewed as a representation of the absent referent, where the body is treated as a commodity without regard for its agency or life. Dr. Frankenstein’s actions embody the logic of domination, exploiting nature without considering the ethical consequences. |
| Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale | A dystopian novel where women are reduced to reproductive objects in a totalitarian regime that strips them of their identity and agency. | The novel reflects patriarchal domination over women, paralleling Adams’ critique of the objectification of both women and animals. The Handmaids, like animals in factory farming, are treated as “instrumentalities” for reproduction. This mirrors the dehumanization of women and animals in patriarchal systems. |
| Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper | A short story about a woman who is confined to her room and slowly descends into madness due to patriarchal control over her body and mind. | Adams’ ecofeminism would critique the confinement of the protagonist as similar to the domination of animals in unnatural settings (e.g., factory farms). The protagonist’s loss of autonomy reflects the broader patriarchal logic that justifies both women’s oppression and the subjugation of animals. |
| George Orwell’s Animal Farm | A political allegory where farm animals overthrow their human owner but ultimately replace one oppressive regime with another. | Adams’ theory would critique how the animals are initially absent referents, instrumentalized as means for production. While Orwell critiques political systems, Adams would push further, highlighting the lack of concern for the intrinsic value of animals beyond their roles in human politics and economics. |
Criticism Against “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol J. Adams
1. Overgeneralization of Feminist and Animal Oppression
- Critics may argue that Adams’ attempt to equate the oppression of women with that of animals through dualism (women/animals vs. men/humans) oversimplifies both issues. Feminist and animal rights struggles may share some commonalities, but collapsing them into one framework can obscure important differences and nuances.
2. Anthropomorphism and Ethical Complexity
- Adams’ critique of the “logic of domination” and her advocacy for vegetarianism and animal rights could be seen as projecting human ethical concerns onto animals in a way that oversimplifies natural ecosystems and predation. Critics may argue that applying human moral frameworks to nonhuman animals involves anthropomorphism and overlooks the ethical complexity of natural food chains.
3. Cultural Insensitivity Toward Indigenous Practices
- Adams critiques the “relational hunt” and calls for vegetarianism, but some may see this as dismissive of indigenous cultures’ hunting practices that are deeply rooted in traditions, spirituality, and sustainable living. Critics might argue that this approach does not adequately respect the cultural context in which certain practices, such as hunting, are carried out in balance with nature.
4. Idealism and Practicality of Vegetarianism
- Some critics may view Adams’ strong advocacy for vegetarianism as idealistic, particularly in socio-economic contexts where access to plant-based diets may not be feasible or culturally appropriate. The universal call for vegetarianism might be seen as ethically simplistic, overlooking the socio-economic, geographical, and cultural realities faced by diverse populations.
5. Narrow Focus on Western Patriarchal Systems
- While Adams critiques Western patriarchal ideologies, critics may argue that her framework doesn’t fully account for non-Western systems of power that might not fit into the same logic of domination between humans, women, and animals. This narrow focus could limit the global applicability of her arguments in cross-cultural ecofeminism.
6. Lack of Engagement with Broader Environmental Issues
- Adams focuses heavily on the ethical treatment of animals and vegetarianism, but critics might argue that this focus limits the broader scope of ecofeminist environmental concerns, such as climate change, pollution, and deforestation, which may not be directly related to animal rights but are equally urgent.
7. Limited Discussion on Economic Systems and Class
- Critics may point out that Adams doesn’t fully explore the role of economic systems and class dynamics in the exploitation of both women and animals. Her critique of capitalist consumption is present, but more depth on how class structures intersect with the oppression of animals could have strengthened her argument.
Representative Quotations from “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol J. Adams with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “The domination of animals is linked to the domination of nature and women.” | This central thesis of Adams’ work shows how she connects the oppression of animals, nature, and women under patriarchal systems. It highlights the intersectional focus of ecofeminism, where different forms of exploitation are seen as interconnected. |
| “Animals are made absent as animals for meat to exist.” | Adams introduces the concept of the absent referent, arguing that the transformation of animals into “meat” erases their identity as living beings, allowing humans to consume them without ethical concern. |
| “A truly gynocentric way of being is being in harmony with the earth, and in harmony with your body, and obviously it doesn’t include killing animals.” | This quote reflects Adams’ view that ecofeminism, which centers on female and ecological harmony, should inherently reject the exploitation of animals, advocating instead for a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. |
| “The average amount of water required daily to feed a person following a vegan diet is 300 gallons; the average amount… for a person following the standard United States meat-based diet is 4,200 gallons.” | Adams uses this statistic to emphasize the environmental impact of meat production, making a case for vegetarianism based on sustainability and resource conservation. |
| “Women and the earth and animals have all been objectified and treated in the same way.” | Here, Adams highlights the parallel between the objectification of women, nature, and animals, showing how all are treated as commodities in patriarchal systems. This reinforces the idea of interconnected oppressions. |
| “To eat animals is to make of them instruments; this proclaims dominance and power-over.” | This quote reflects Adams’ critique of the logic of domination, where consuming animals asserts human superiority and power over non-human beings, aligning with patriarchal practices of control. |
| “Ecofeminism posits that the domination of nature is linked to the domination of women, and that both dominations must be eradicated.” | Adams succinctly explains the core of ecofeminist theory, which argues for the elimination of all forms of domination—over women, nature, and animals—as necessary for a just and sustainable world. |
| “The problem of seeing maintenance as productive occurs on an individual level as well.” | Adams critiques how both household maintenance (domestic work) and environmental maintenance are devalued under capitalist and patriarchal systems, suggesting a need to reframe these activities as productive and essential. |
| “The social construction of animals as edible bodies results from patriarchal thinking.” | Adams critiques the cultural process by which animals are ontologized as food, arguing that this is not a natural occurrence but a result of patriarchal and capitalist systems that justify the exploitation of non-human life. |
| “A feminist-vegetarian connection can be seen as arising within an ecofeminist framework.” | This quote encapsulates Adams’ argument that vegetarianism is not just an ethical choice but one that emerges naturally from ecofeminist thinking, which opposes all forms of oppression and exploitation. |
Suggested Readings: “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” by Carol J. Adams
- Adams, Carol J. “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals.” Hypatia, vol. 6, no. 1, 1991, pp. 125–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810037. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.
- George, Kathryn Paxton. “Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?” Signs, vol. 19, no. 2, 1994, pp. 405–34. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3174804. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.
- Gaard, Greta. “Vegetarian Ecofeminism: A Review Essay.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 23, no. 3, 2002, pp. 117–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3347337. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.
- Donovan, Josephine. “Comment on George’s ‘Should Feminists Be Vegetarians?'” Signs, vol. 21, no. 1, 1995, pp. 226–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3175142. Accessed 23 Oct. 2024.