Introduction
Karen Warren coined the term “Ecofeminism” in explaining the logic of domination where the notion of people’s control over nature as a whole is wrong and for the same reason that the subordination of women to the will of men is also wrong. According to argument, feminists should object to the idea domination because subordination of women and domination over nature both represents the logic of domination. On the other hand, the asserted claim of twin domination encompasses several issues. In this discussion, Warren’s logic of domination and the concept of ecofeminism will be examined by explaining how the logic is being justified. In addition, the twin logic domination such as subordination of women to men and the subordination of nature by human will be debunked by presenting opposing logics derived from other philosophical claims. At this point of the argument, it can be assumed that ecofeminism opposes the enlightenment view and that Warren’s logic of domination cannot simply write off enlightenment feminism as conceptually inauthentic.
Ecofeminism and the Logic of Domination
In a popular view of Karen Warren’s claims, it was argued that the subordination of women by men and the domination of nature by humans are interconnected (Warren). This claim was justified by a set of arguments encompassing the context of “logic of domination”. In addition, the core of Warren’s argument suggests that patriarchal dualism put women and nature within the same category that is regarded as of lesser worth than masculine and culture class. Hence, the process in which humanity becomes ecologically aware should also overcome the notion of oppression on women (Sterba). These arguments follow a scheme of justification encompassing the logic of domination.
Argument 1. Environmental objects such as rocks and plants does not have the capability as humans to radically and consciously constitute change within the community where they live.
Argument 2. Whatever the capacity to make radical and conscious change in the community is morally superior to those that do not have the same capability.
Argument 3. Hence, the human capacity to consciously and radically change the community is morally superior to inanimate objects in the environment such as rocks and plants.
Argument 4. For any reason that one entity is morally superior to another, it is then acceptable to the assume that the subordination of a less superior entity is morally justified.
Argument 5. Hence, humans are morally justified to dominate nature.
Within the above premises that Warren points out an assumption where the inexistence of arguments two and four will only show that humans are different from inanimate objects in nature. More importantly, argument four encompasses the key assumption that provides the justification of subordination of women to men. In relation to the subject of domination of men over women, Warren’s five arguments can be interpreted by replacing the two subjects as women being an object of nature that belongs in the physical realm while men can be identified as the human that belongs in the mental realm. Adopting Warren’s logic, it can be assumed that men being the mentally human are morally superior to women, which is described as a physical object of nature just like rocks and plants. Conversely, this interpretation suggests that women are inferior to men, and for any reason that the latter is more superior justifies the subordination of the former. Hence, the domination of men over women is justified.
Problems found in Ecofeminism
Contemplating on Warren’s argument’s, there is no doubt that the objection of the logic of domination could lead to her in rejecting her own logic when its principles are applied to the inanimate objects such as plants and rocks. There is a sense of shallowness in the analogy of representing the principles of domination particularly in asserting the correlation between the domination of nature by humans and the subordination of women by men. First, women are practically in the same category as men in terms of physically form, being a human and far from being associated to rocks and plants in the environment. There is no sense in comparing women to objects in the environment just to create a differentiating characteristic from men being identified as human and mental. Both genders are human and mental given the capacity of consciousness, but it is difficult to grasp the idea that the two are different where one is classified as mentally human while the other is not when both are practically the same in nature.
This brings Warren’s parallel arguments on the logic of domination into question. No doubt that there are multiple theories about domination and each one has its own flaws, but Warren’s position on the matter of domination and subordination is plagued with so much lack of sense, at least on the principled basis of the enlightenment tradition. Enlightenment played a critical role in the emergence of modern feminism. At least the principles conveyed in the enlightenment tradition provides the conditions in the objection to notion of domination of men over women, but does not apply in the argument pertaining to the domination of nature by humans. There are certain conditions that links modern feminism to Warren’s claims. Assuming that Warren’s arguments demonstrate that of the modern Western enlightenment principles, it leads to believe that the arguments are also product of enlightenment political thought.
However, it is not to assert that the enlightenment principles supports the feminist nature of Warren’s arguments because not all enlightenment thinkers are feminists, in fact some of the most notable thinkers are regarded as misogynists. Take for example Rousseau and Kant, the moral autonomy, theory, and concepts of moral rights involving equality of persons was asserted in their reasoning about domination. According to Rousseau and Kant, equality and autonomy requires that all persons should be entitled to self-regulation within the social, political, and moral sphere (Karakelle). Therefore, Warren’s feminist argument thought to be derived from the principles of enlightenment tradition asserting that men dominates women offends the enlightenment principles of equality and autonomy. This assumption was based on the interpretation of Warren’s logic of domination where the domination of women by men is because of women’s lack of legal and political standing and social inferiority (Archambault).
According to Warren’s logic of domination, women are dominated by men because of moral inferiority and compared women with objects in the environment such as rocks and plants. With that line of reasoning, it appears that Warren describes women as morally inferior, which under the lenses of enlightenment paradigm constitutes a disrespectful and immoral treatment of women rather than elevating their value on the subject of equality. Based on this understanding of the principles of logic of domination, the subject of domination of women by men is merely limited to subject of unjust subordination within the socio-political paradigm, but it does not provide the rational to object to domination of nature. Furthermore, the arguments asserted by Warren can only be regarded as unjust domination and does not represent the general concept of domination in which all entities of the physical environment are included. On the other hand, the more critical flaw observed in Warren’s ecofeminism could be found in the found in the reasoning for finding domination involving moral objection.
According to Neuhouser (2013), the concept of domination in the context of philosophical reasoning is attributed to the absence of will and freedom. However, Warren uses the concept of domination to assert the subordination of nature on humanity and correlate that assumption to the subordination of women by men. Apparently, when talking about domination, it involves undermining the will of the one being dominated in favor of the dominator. At the very least, domination can be established if the one being dominated has a will and this raises the question of intelligibility of Warren’s position on domination of nature by human by applying the characteristics of injustice towards the subordination of the non-conscious objects in the environment and call it domination. The described question considers the following;
If domination of nature by humans can be considered as unjust and morally objectionable, therefore, should have a will of its own or at least a conscious attribute to feel oppressed.
If nature has no will of its own or feel oppressed, then the domination of nature by human cannot be considered morally objectionable. Domination of nature by human may be unjust for other reasons, but it still cannot be correlated to the concept of domination in general or be the same with the context of subordination of women by men.
Concerning the view of subordination of women, the rational for seeing it as wrong is because it involves suppression of the moral will of another. In this regard, the domination of women by men can be morally objectionable because it involves undermining someone’s choice, forbidding the conditions for the articulation of choices, or undermining them. Therefore, the domination of women by men is objectionable for the reason that women are volitional and conscious. However, the same cannot be said about the domination of nature. For one, the conditions to establish the context of domination such as suppression of will, freedom of choices, consciousness and volition are inexistent in most objects in nature. In the earlier example, rocks and plants are part of the natural environment, but the concept of domination cannot be applied to such as objects as they do not meet the conditions for domination. There might be reasons to imply domination of nature by human in particular cases such as proliferation of species and other natural resources.
Conclusion
In cases involving the disruption of the balance in the ecosystem because of the acts of proliferation can be considered as wrong, but not to the extent of injustice attributed to the wrongness of the subordination women to men. In this regard, Warren’s claims encompass problematic assumptions of domination and subordination.
Works Cited
Archambault, Anne. "A Critique Of Ecofeminism". Canadian Woman Studies 13.3 (1994): 19-22. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
Karakelle, Sibel. "The Carriers Of The Enlightenment: Mozart And Rousseau In The 18Th Century Europe". Humanity and Social Sciences Journal 2.1 (2007): 23-28. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
Neuhouser, Frederick. "Rousseau’S Critique Of Economic Inequality". Philosophy & Public Affairs41.3 (2013): 193-225. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
Sterba, James. "On The Possibility Of Grounding A Defense Of Ecofeminist Philosophy On JSTOR".Jstor.org. N.p., 2002. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
Warren, Karen. "Introduction To Ecofeminism". Media.pfeiffer.edu. N.p., 1993. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.
