Introduction
In the article, the writer makes the case that women have better instincts for the ecological sustenance of the earth. Her case is based on the fact that women are more fundamentally materially grouped in the ecology of the planet than men. She regards these instincts to human existence on the planet. She says that human-caused environmental problems of the planet are extensively due to an exploitive, paternalistic, male dominated culture (Warren & Erkal, 1997). Mary approaches the argument from a Marxist, materialistic view combining it with ecofeminism and non-anthropocentricity. She argues that, there is no necessary conflict between a Marxist approach to human-human relations and a deep ecological approach to human-nature relation.
Material ecofeminism points particular historical, social and physical dynamic represented by gender dualism, this is only one pattern of meditation. It involves women as mediators of human nature relations. Affinity ecofeminism adopt a radical perspective, viewing men as the source of eco-destruction and women as the contemporary representatives. It does not see masculine- feminism as destructive. Social constructionist ecofeminism see gender inequalities as resting on other social inequalities. Ecofeminists see the ecological crisis to have originated from specific material and cultural of the North West.
Materialist ecofeminism is based primarily on the assertion of gender inequalities. The concept of mediation puts the focus on the gender interaction between historically male and female identified culture. A second element of materialist ecofeminism is the claim that in gendered societies, women embody nature both materially and symbolically (Warren & Erkal, 1997). The dilemma of ecofeminism is the two elements; ecology and feminism are in contradiction to each other. Human as natural spices is embodied in its physical being and embedded in its natural context.
Materiality of materialists’ ecofeminism has two meaning, first a necessity of human beings to meet needs of their bodily existence legal frame work and the second reflect the actually existing socioeconomic process within which the need of deep materiality are met.
In her argument about deep materialism and deep ecology, Mary, she argues that deep ecology contributes to deep materialism through its re-evaluation of the relation between human and non-human nature. Deep materialism shares with deep ecology a view of nature as embracing humanity. Deep ecologists use ecocentrism to express a nature-centered approach as opposed to human-centeredness. On deep materialism perspective however, human being are inside of the process of life. She argues that deep ecologists are to accuse modern humanism of arrogance in its attitude to a natural world.
Mary says that deep ecology goes beyond the so called factual level to the level and earth wisdom to articulate a comprehensive religious and philosophical worldview. The idealism of this perspective means that human-nature relations are not realized through the materiality of human connectedness. She argues that materialist ecofeminism has strong links with critical realism and feminist epistemology.
Human immanence will always mean that any knowledge about the natural world is partial. She argues that immanence could be realized through scientific understanding, but the physiological experience of embodiment, embracing the realities of life, love and death could be another channel of awareness (Warren & Erkal, 1997). She says another possible avenue through which immanent realism could be achieved is through a spiritual awareness.
The core assumption in a materialist ecofeminism analysis of western capitalist patriarchy is that an environment ethics cannot be dissociated from an ethics of justice and the demand for a resolution of unequal structure of power. She argues that, constraint of human existence as natural beings are mediated through unequal human-human relation. Three point agency can be identified to enable change occur (Warren & Erkal, 1997). The most obvious is the planet’s own response to human action. Some sociological effects of human action such as ozone depletion and global warming, unlike desertification and localized pollution affect the dominant and the subordinate and may thereby motivate the dominant to seek solution.
The currently dysfunctional relation to nature can only be reformed by understanding the nature of the social relations that reinforce the contemporary patterns of unsustainability and the material relations between nature and humanity. It is only through an expanded sense of self that humans will be able to understand the cosmology of nature which is critical in changing the current position of women in the society. Since it is nature and other men who in most cases dictate the destiny of women, man and nature should learn to merge themselves and accept women as their equals. Sex or gender division of labor around human embodiment is crucial in an industrialist patriarchy and must be dejected and avoided by all means.
All historical prejudices that place women at a vulnerable circumstance needs to be addressed widely and comprehensively (Warren & Erkal, 1997). The society needs to stop considering men as transcendent. The social economic immanence of women should be reconsidered and reformed as it places women at a position that makes it very easy for them to be dominated by the chauvinistic men who perceive themselves as the dominators of the previous, contemporary and prospective society. Women should not carry the burden of biological time that has been placed upon them by the life cycle. Gender exploitation that reflects a deep state of materialism should and must be tugged from the corrupted minds of men in the society. Women should not pay the price of capital patriarchy. The entire idea of capital patriarchy should be fought and reformed completely and transcendently.
A campaign should be initiated to liberate those who are subjected to social and environmental injustices. This in one way will be able to increase people’s awareness on the issue of equity and the adversities of dislocations of the societal norms and mannerisms. The human-nature relations should be monitored and the present patterns of malconnectedness between nonhuman-nature and humanity should also not be left to the discretion of nature.
Mellor’s claims are quite compelling and well elucidated. Mellor finds ecofeminism to be an aspect that is quite offensive and causing many social problems. He finds the kind of oppression that nature and the male-dominated society places on women to be a concomitant problematic issue that quite earnestly needs to be addressed compelled and contained. It is not only nature that oppresses women but correspondingly men and the society as general (Warren & Erkal, 1997). Mellor finds that ecofeminism started in the western countries and its originality can basically be associated to the west. The dysfunctional human-nature relationship must be critically examined and the relevant counteractive agencies taken to reweave the world.
References
Warren, K., & Erkal, N. (1997). Ecofeminism: Women, culture, nature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
