I was interested in your perspective, and the Euro-centric concerns expressed in your posting and others. I have recently been reading the work of Murray Bookchin who thinks that the idea of spiritual ecology (be it in deep/earth first style or imbedded in ecofeminist dialog) is antithetical to the pursuit of a fair and non-racist, non-sexist society. His argument being that the ideas of the spiritual (read, in his case, non-objective), except on a personal level, will result in hierarchical policy. They are important but should be left out of the government and social institutions. This is certainly true for Americans today and probably true most other highly populous, multi-ethnic, technocratic (or headed that way) nations, when taken as a whole. I am under the impression, however, that several indigenous communities - some Polynesian, such as the Hawaiian tradition of having an elder be an overseer of the resources of a group - have traditions that provide examples to the contrary, where traditional spirituality and ecological respect are socially instituted in non-exploitative ways. In addition, I feel that bioregionalism, in its broadest sense, allows for the public to become accountable and open to tradition that the institutions of state can never be. Perhaps while I live in a country that insists on abandoning social programs for social darwinism and using nuclear power despite the "power of democracy." Also, I think that a possibility for ecofeminism is to use cultural differences positively in its continuum of thought, instead of allowing it to form a divisive factor amoung women. (without trivializing the real and hurtful emotions of racism). What are your feelings about this? Kim Chaloner, boiling in New York City - but I wish I was on a beach in the South Island, Aotearoa! >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 27 19:07:34 1995 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 21:11:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: deep ecology and ecofem I agree with what Shawn is saying here about the interconnectedness of oppressions, and that many who write as deep ecologists often seem naively unaware of interhuman forms of oppression, something they might work on if they want to be more effective: > Without addressing these interconnections, DE > is incomplete. In a sense one could say they value on oppression > over all others and, in doing so, they will be unsuccessful in > ending the oppression of non-human nature. However, I have to disagree with this approach to population issues. While rates, conditions and causes have varied from place to place, the total human population has doubled from less than 3 billion to almost 6 billion in 3 or 4 decades--how can this not have an enormous effect on the living creatures and living systems of the Earth, in and of itself? It's much too simplistic to just dismiss this huge increase in the number of us as "simply a symptom" of something else. And nonhumans don't know too much about "larger social and economic problems"--they have to feel the impact of more human mouths to feed, however those mouths are fed, though of course the more the "capitalist consumption" per mouth the greater the impact will be. > This is where over-population fits in. I don't believe ecofeminists > have neglected the issue, it's simply a symptom of larger social > and economic problems--social injustice and capitalist consumption to > name two. Moreover, where I live, in Florida, I don't encounter population growth as particularly a result of social injustice, though it may be in some parts of the world. What I see is lots of middle and upper middle class people moving into the state--for a while it was over 1000 people a day--and taking over more and more land, killing more and more of its nonhuman inhabitants. (It will, of course, sooner or later cause real problems for humans as well, water problems, waste disposal problems, etc, but for now we seem to think we can put off thinking about these problems.) And I see very little awareness that choosing to have "just one more" child now will lead to "just one more" homesite cleared off in twenty years. But how could it be otherwise? I think exercising choice over our reproduction, and choosing to limit it, is a very critical issue that can't just be brushed away--it merits a really thorough examination. Ronnie >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 27 22:14:07 1995 id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 16:18:33 +1200 ; 28 Jul 95 16:16:03 +1200 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 16:15:29 +1200 From: LORIETTE MORRIS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Contextual Ethics To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: Lincoln University Kia ora Shawn >According to Nellie, in her culture the concept of "earth as mother" >is central to individual identity. Ecofeminist ethics are >contextual for this very reason; perceptions vary from one culture >to the next. It's not o.k., in my opinion, for women of other >cultures to tell Nellie that her culture is sexist. Thank you. There are a lot of things in my culture that are, let's say `misunderstood' by many people. A lot of our younger women/wahine knowledgeable in the ways of our culture, wish to change a lot of the traditions because they see them as `restricting their freedom' or `sexist'. I, on the other hand, am more of a traditionalist but I still support my sisters rights to change aspect of our culture that they see fit to change. Only WE can do this. The main reason why early feminism failed to influence many of us wahine was because it didn't let US decide what we wanted changed and what we wanted kept. It came in and said, "this is sexist, that is sexist". It assumed that what the MEN were doing was the norm and what WE were doing was somehow inferior. Many of us wahine who celebrate mana wahine, accept our place in te kotahitanga (the unity), a lot of our wahine do not that is their choice and I will support them as they would me. >Many women with European cultural identities do have a problem with >the "earth as mother" concept because in their culture women and >nature have been denigrated. They find this analogy offensive. This is sad, and I realise how the analogy could be construed as offensive. In this sense, I would never ask a wahine of European or other descent to take on my beliefs for herself. I think that culturally defined beliefs should be accepted, however, if they allow a group of people a sense of pride and identity. >Toshihide raises another issue about ecofeminism being "western >centered". I believe she is correct. I think that I'm ignorant >of eastern environ-mentalism. I've largely rejected eastern and >western spirituality because I believe most religions are too >sexist for me to stomach. I don't know much about eastern spirituality, I hope Toshihide will tell us more. I think, however, that is it may be wrong to equate spirituality with religion. Spirituality is something that is intangible, something that a person `lives', whereas religion is institutionalised spirituality, I think:). But yes we do have our tohunga (some would call them priests), they're really more like healers than priests (nowadays they tend to mix our spirituality with christianity). Most of them are men, there are wahine, but wahine, however, tend to be matekite (seers and healers). >...I'd love to just listen to non-Euro women's views on ecofeminism >for awhile. I still working my way through "A beginner's guide to feminism":), but I'm actually learning something about ecofeminism myself reading other people's views and it's been really interesting so far. Naku na ano Nellie
