Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism

Author(s): A.E. Kings

Source: Ethics and the Environment , Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring 2017), pp. 63-87
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.1.04

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/ethicsenviro.22.1.04?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Ethics and the Environment

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
INTERSECTIONALITY AND
THE CHANGING FACE OF
ECOFEMINISM
A.E. KINGS

Abstract
With its longstanding commitment to intersectional analysis, ecofeminism has
always concerned itself with understanding the unique experiences of those who
face discrimination, but it is only recently that ecofeminists have come to label
their work as explicitly intersectional. This paper will examine the changing
nature of ecofeminism and the importance of continuing to work within an inter-
sectional framework. I will begin by reviewing the genealogy of intersectionality
and ecofeminism, before exploring the current directions which intersectional
ecofeminism is taking and the limitations which challenge intersectional theori-
sation. I will demonstrate the importance of an intersectional Indian ecofeminist
approach, by exploring the complex circumstances surrounding the management
of menstrual hygiene amongst young women in rural India: an issue which if
approached non-intersectionally, would effectively silence their struggle.

INTRODUCTION TO INTERSECTIONALITY
The term intersectionality, which is generally attributed to Kimberlé
Crenshaw, began as a metaphorical and conceptual tool used to highlight
the inability of a single-axis framework to capture the lived experiences of
black women. Whilst many disciplines (including ecofeminism) have used
the ‘tools’ of intersectionality before 1989, modern day usage of the term
is usually associated with Crenshaw’s specific approach. The development
of Crenshaw’s intersectionality, originated from the failure of both feminist
and anti-racist discourse; to represent and capture the specificity of the dis-
crimination faced by black women. This failure resulted from an inability

ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT 22, no. 1 (2017), 63–87

Copyright ©
5IF
5SVTUFFT
PG
*OEJBOB
6OJWFSTJUZ
t
EPJ
FUIJDTFOWJSP

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 to identify the multiple grounds which constitute an individual’s identity;
meaning that well-intentioned scholarship was unable to acknowledge and
address the specific ways in which race and gender could mutually rein-
force discrimination against black women. Crenshaw’s metaphor of the
traffic intersection, representing the multiplicity and complexity of varying
oppressions faced by black women, is one which has stood the test of time.
Feminist and ecofeminist intersectionality attempts to attend to the variety
of ways in which women live and the range of circumstances, which influ-
ence their often vastly differing experiences.
By using the tools of intersectionality to help illuminate the intercon-
nectedness of race, class, gender, disability, sexuality, caste, religion, age
and the effects which these can have (in their many and uniquely consti-
tuted forms) on the discrimination, oppression, and identity of women and
the natural environment. While intersectionality was first used to describe
the particular experiences of black women; it was further developed as an
analytic tool by feminists, hoping to address and resolve the most funda-
mental and contentious of concerns within feminist scholarship—i.e. the
existence of differences between women. The intersectional project has
provided ecofeminism (and feminism) with a convenient opportunity to
confront some of the skeletons in its closet, forcing the discipline to chal-
lenge a past which was too often essentialist and exclusionary.
Mari J. Matsuda described the potentially simple methodology of rec-
ognising the interconnection of all discrimination, as one which required
an openness to ‘asking the other question.’ In her 1991 article in the
Stanford Law Review, Matsuda demonstrated the importance of recog-
nizing that any one type of subordination rarely (if ever) stands alone, she
states “When I see something that looks racist, I ask, ‘Where is the patriarchy in
this?’ When I see something that looks sexist, I ask, ‘Where is the hetero-
sexism in this?’” and “When I see something that looks homophobic, I
ask, ‘Where are the class interests in this?’” (1189). This ‘asking of the other
question’ allows for the exposition of hidden forms of prejudice and discrimina-
tion, by exposing the various disadvantages and privileges which make up the
lived experiences and complex identities of every individual e.g. the black woman,
the male Mexican migrant worker, or the North American female university pro-
fessor. Asking the other question is a useful practical device which promotes a
basic awareness of the multiplicity of experience, but it also serves as a reminder
to remain aware of one’s potential prejudices.
Reflecting upon one’s position, especially when speaking from a point
of privilege, helps to avoid the unintentional marginalization of other
groups or identities, as was the case with black women in the feminist

 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and anti-racist movements. As a simple theoretical device, Matsuda’s ‘ask-
ing of the other question’ serves as an adequately functional model and
a good springboard towards intersectional analysis, but the subsequent
development of intersectionality has evolved into something more sub-
stantial. The success of intersectionality in feminist and ecofeminist work
points to the self-reflectivity of both disciplines and to the capacity of
intersectionality to be interpreted and practiced in multiple ways, though
this is a point of contention for some (Nash 2008). The diversity of inter-
sectional theory can be seen through the wide range of fields carrying out
work on intersectionality in theoretical grounding, methodology, or prac-
tice; including sociology, psychology, politics, feminism, post-colonial,
queer and women’s gender studies, anti-racist scholarship, ecofeminism,
development research, and environmentalism. Crenshaw’s original meta-
phor of a crossroads or traffic intersection, that seized the imagination of
so many, has been adopted, adapted and sometimes replaced in favor of
an entire rainbow of metaphors that all attempt in some way to capture
the peculiar richness of the concept.
Intersectionality has been described as a complexity (McCall 2005),
a continuum (Mehrotra 2010), a lens (MacGregor 2010), a paradigm
(Winker & Degele 2011 and Hulko 2009), an axis or axes (Yuval Davis
2006), a crossroads with a roundabout (Garry 2011), a critical praxis
(Hill Collins 2015), a matrix of domination (Bilge 2010 and Hill Collins,
2015), a framework (Anthias 2012), a ‘nodal point’ (Lykke 2005), a rhi-
zome (Lykke 2010) or even a mountain with liquids of uneven viscosity
running down it and mixing together (Garry 2011). The sheer volume and
variance of interpretations, metaphors and methodologies within intersec-
tional literature (of which only a few have been mentioned) clearly depicts
the ‘story’ of intersectional theory, one which is as broad and encompass-
ing as intersectionality itself is often professed to be. The prolificacy of the
metaphors used to describe intersectionality points to its complexity as
a concept, which can be difficult to illustrate in non-metaphorical terms.
Perhaps due to my background in environmental philosophy, I have
always approached intersectionality as being more of a web of entangle-
ment, than a traffic junction or road. Each spoke of the web representing
a continuum of different types of social categorisation such as gender, sex-
uality, race, or class; while encircling spirals depict individual identities.
The spirals collide with each spoke at a different level of the continuum,
illustrating the context-specific privilege or discrimination experienced
by the individual. A spider’s web preserves the necessary complexity of

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 65

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 intersectionality and the potential ‘stickiness’ of cultural categories, which
can often leave people stuck between two or more intersecting or conflict-
ing social categories.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL

CONSIDERATIONS
Leslie McCall heralded intersectionality as “the most important the-
oretical contribution that women’s studies...has made.” (2005, 1771).
However, despite its enormous success appealing to a wide audience; the
absence of feminist methodologies for the use of intersectionality is con-
cerning. The success of intersectionality can be explained in part, by its
ability to capture the imagination of the academic masses, which must
first appeal to a ‘primary’ concern of its audience and then offer a poten-
tial solution to the most fundamental and disturbing of the audience’s
concerns, a problem which threatens “to destroy their ideally immovable
valued object.” (Murray Davis 1986, 290). As a result, the audience will
be compelled to accept and engage with the theory or risk having to ‘give
up’ an essential part of their academic belief system (Kathy Davis 2008,
70). Intersectionality’s success within feminist scholarship could be under-
stood (at least in part) as being a result of its ability to address a central
theoretical and practical concern shared by eco/feminist scholars—namely,
of the differences between women.
Intersectionality promises to avoid the common traps of ‘essential dif-
ference’ by looking beyond the categories which dominated essentialism
debates in the 1980s and 1990s. A second and related part of a successful
theory can be found in its ability to provide a new and novel interpreta-
tion to an old problem (Murray Davis 1971, 343), one which helps to
create an exciting new area of dialogue within an academic discipline. On
the other hand, a theory which merely confirms or denies that which we
already know to be the case will fail to have the mass-market appeal that
a completely new idea would be able to generate. Intersectionality offered
a ‘new twist’ on critical ecofeminism by offering a “nodal point” (Lykke
2005) for disparate approaches to contribute to ecofeminist scholarship
and explore the effects of sexism, class, homophobia, caste systems, and
racism on women and their relationship with the environment. It allows
for the cross-examination of issues from differing theoretical backgrounds
using a wide range of methodological approaches, which as part of a
larger post-structuralist project: attempts to deconstruct categories and
unveil the universalism at play in ecofeminist and feminist scholarship.

66 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Although all intersectional theorists share a belief in the need for
research to recognize the complexity of discrimination and identity; the
epistemological position of the practitioners of intersectional theory can-
not and should not be taken for granted. This is illustrated in the differ-
ing approaches taken by researchers, with regards to their beliefs about
the epistemic standing of social categorization. Leslie McCall identifies
the main three approaches or ‘complexities’ of intersectionality as being either
anticategorical, intracategorical, or intercategorical (2005, 1773). Anticategorical
complexity attempts to deconstruct the categories themselves, and in doing so,
McCall posits that it is the most complex and thus most successful form of inter-
sectionality, regarding its ability to provide complexity. The second intercate-
gorical approach requires that researchers temporarily adopt pre-existing social
categories so that they may document the inequalities along the many axes of
power: McCall identifies her work as fitting within this epistemological category
or complexity.
The third and final complexity is intracategorical, which McCall
states, “inaugurated intersectionality” (1773–74). This approach falls
between the two others, one of which rejects categories and the other, that
uses them ‘strategically.’ An intracategorical approach focuses on partic-
ular social groups at “neglected points of intersection” (1774) and is typ-
ically used in case studies. Whereas an intercategorical approach accepts
(strategically at least) the current constitution of social groups in order
to examine the changes in the inequalities between social categories, this
approach is not concerned with understanding or challenging the defini-
tion or depiction of groups but rather with quantifying the relationships
and inequalities between socially constructed categories. It is likely that
much (although certainly not all) intersectional ecofeminist and feminist
theory would fall within the parameters of an intracategorical approach.
On the one hand, ecofeminism recognizes the durability of social catego-
ries, while on the other, challenges the foundation which such categoriza-
tions rest.
While some ecofeminists remain committed to anticategorical ideals,
in practice it is often necessary to adopt more of an intracategorical (or
even intercategorical) approach. Such approaches, especially an intracate-
gorical one, allow for an acknowledgement of the role of social categories
in society, but also, an ability to focus on neglected groups, whilst also
making room for scepticism towards current methods of social categori-
zation. Although Audre Lorde’s Sister Outsider (1984), predates our con-
temporary understanding of intersectionality, regarding the complexities
of inequality, her intracategorical approach, illustrates the importance of

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 67

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 acknowledging the existence of social categories. Lorde criticised the pro-
pensity of the women’s movement to ignore issues of race and class, in
favour of promoting a sisterhood which does not, in fact, exist (116).
Differences of skin color or class do not prevent this sisterhood, but rather
a refusal to acknowledge these differences or believing them to be insur-
mountable; prevents discrimination from being successfully challenged.
An anticategorical approach seeks to dismantle social categories, whereas
Lorde’s intracategorical method provides an acknowledgement of the
flaws within our understanding of social categories, while also recogniz-
ing the current structures of oppression and the power structures respon-
sible for them.
McCall’s interpretation of the ‘complex inequality’ of intersectional-
ity provides the theoretical justification for focusing on certain groups at
neglected points of an intersection; making it easier to go beyond theoret-
ical claims, by instead producing work which has the potential to directly
influence policy, affecting both women and nature. McCall’s ‘three com-
plexities’ of intersectionality offer a range of epistemological positions for
the potential practitioner of intersectional research. However, by focusing
solely on either the macro or micro level of power relations and social
categories, research risks ignoring inequalities resulting from other levels
of social structures. Some, such as Winker and Degele, have suggested that
intersectionality requires a multi-level approach (or MLA) which takes
into account the interactions between the three levels of inequality con-
struction (2011, 54).
The scope of this paper does not allow for me to provide an in-depth
analysis of the eight steps of the multi-level intersectional analysis rec-
ommended by Winker and Degele. However, it is important to draw
attention to the three levels (or aspects) of analysis identified by both
themselves and Sandra Harding (1986) as being: identity constructions,
symbolic representations, and social structures. Appreciating all three of
these levels is a tricky process, but one which is necessary in order to
successfully analyze the structures of power which influence all social
relations from the individual to the international. A multi-level approach
takes into account the ability of individuals to constitute their individual
identity, the concrete relations of power and their supporting symbolic
representations. Winker and Degele’s multi-level approach and their pro-
posed methodological framework is a marked attempt to move away
from vague rhetoric, instead offering a context-driven and integrative
social practice.

68 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Understandably, many have expressed concern at the enthusiastic
adoption of intersectionality by the feminist community, given its lack
of clarity as a theoretical tool. Concern over the applicability of inter-
sectionality has generally focused on its methodology as feminists face
the problem of what to do after engaging with Matsuda’s asking of ‘the
other question.’ The broadness of intersectional approaches can be over-
whelming; some feminists have expressed concern over the seemingly
endless list of intersections to which we must address if one is to use
intersectionality ‘correctly.’ Judith Butler notes the ‘etc.’ which comes
after many feminist lists (sexism, classism, speciesism, homophobia, etc.)
of social cleavages/divisions (Butler 1989, 143) and sees it as an embar-
rassed “sign of exhaustion” on the part of ecofeminists (Yuval-Davis
2006, 202). Others have argued that the notion of intersectionality
would greatly benefit from a ‘universal definition’ (Verloo 2006) which
could provide scholars with a rigid methodological framework of how
to use intersectionality in ecofeminist theory. Moreover, those such as
Winker and Degele have successfully offered a stricter methodological
framework from which to operate. It is nevertheless necessary to point
out that a critique of intersectionality, based upon either a desire for
universality or fatigue with the broadness of categories to be considered,
is likely to be derived from a position of privilege. The existence of inter-
sectionality originally stemmed from the inability of mainstream femi-
nism to recognize its privileged position, so too does non-intersectional
feminism today.
By being neither too complicated nor too simple, intersectionality has
the capacity to draw a wide audience from the full feminist spectrum.
While some have accused ecofeminism of losing relevance and becom-
ing the theoretical preserve of an academic elite (Stanley and Wise 2000,
276). Intersectionality has helped to develop the practical application of
ecofeminism by ‘initiating a process of discovery’ (Davis 2008, 7) by act-
ing as an analytic tool or ‘lens’ to aid critical thinking on ecofeminist
debates. The theory’s ambiguity allows for intersectionality to be inter-
preted and utilized in an almost infinite number of ways, and although
it does not fit sociology’s criteria for a typically ‘good’ conceptual theory,
it does fit the criterion for a good feminist theory, as discussed by Judith
Butler and Joan Scott (1992). Butler and Scott describe a good feminist
theory as one which is able to generate discussion, analysis and research,
while also opening up the floor for feminists to proceed into areas that
had previously provided constraints (xiii).

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The place of good ecofeminist theory is not necessarily to provide
ultimate answers, but rather to allow for critical engagement with the
multitude experiences contributing to the discrimination of women and
the environment, while at the same time recognising the limitations and
constraints of one’s analysis. In the following section, I will outline a brief
genealogy of ecofeminist thought in order to trace the use and importance
of intersectionality. I will go on to explore the ways in which intersectional
ecofeminist thought, although not always explicitly referenced as intersec-
tional, is an ever growing and integral part of ecofeminism’s future.

ECOFEMINISM AND INTERSECTIONALITY

Intersectional research broadly falls into three main categories: the-
ory, methodology, and application. Each category tends to grapple with
one central question, respectively: What is intersectionality? How do we
use intersectionality? And, what does intersectional research demonstrate?
One might be forgiven for thinking that ecofeminism does not ‘do’ inter-
sectionality, much less fit into any of the above categories, but this would
be a mistake. While the explicit use of the term intersectionality originated
in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it is an insufficiently acknowledged
fact that ecofeminists have been ‘doing intersectionality’ for many years
before Crenshaw first explicitly defined it in 1989. Ecological feminism or
ecofeminism is an area of academic study concerned with understanding
the interconnected relationship between the domination of women and
the domination of nature.
It is the central contention of ecofeminist political philosophy that
the oppressions of women and nature are linked “conceptually, his-
torically, materially but not essentially” (Mallory 2010, 309)—that is,
at least not any more or less essentially than their male counterparts.
Ecofeminism recognizes the ethical interconnection of the domination
of women and the domination and exploitation of nature. The histor-
ical precedent which separates and sets humans above nature is also
responsible for enforcing the ‘violent rupture’ between humankind and
nature—which helps to render humanity ignorant of its duty towards the
natural environment and the non-human other. Ecofeminists highlight
that this dualistic conception of culture/nature seeks to maintain both the
“ecological superiority of humans and the cultural superiority of men”
(Mallory 2010, 309), meaning that the liberation of women cannot be
achieved without the simultaneous liberation of nature from the clutches
of exploitation.

70 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ecofeminism explores the twin oppressions experienced by women
and nature in an attempt to understand their shared destiny (Dobson
1995, 187). Inextricably linked to the merged destinies of women and
nature is the idea that humanity itself is inseparable from nature as a
whole and as such, the damage inflicted upon nature by humans invariably
leads to harm being inflicted upon all of humankind and not just women.
Although, ecofeminist intersectionality recognizes that women are likely
to be amongst those most affected by environmental degradation, with
those at the margins of society often experiencing these effects earliest
and to the harshest degree. The attempt to reconcile and improve upon
the relationship between humankind and nature is central to ecological
feminist thought, as is the belief (in some cases at least) that by applying
the lens of intersectionality to analysis, one is better able to understand
and assess the complex relationship between humans (specifically women)
and the natural world.
The cornerstone of intersectional theory echoes the sentiment of the
oft-quoted phrase, uttered most famously by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
that ‘No one is free until we are all free’ (Babbit and Campbell 1999,
205). This phrase, used much through the sixties civil rights movement,
captured the spirit of a generation, highlighting the inability of white or
black people to be truly free until the other is. Intersectional ecofeminism
builds upon this foundation by further postulating that the ‘freedom’ of
humanity is not only reliant on the freedom of nature and women, but it
is also reliant on the achievement of liberation for all of those at inter-
secting points on along these fault lines. Intersectionality has become a
powerful tool when applied to ecofeminist analysis of the relationship
between women and the environment, particularly in its ability to assist
in furthering our understanding of how a person’s relationship with the
environment (in the Global South or North) is not completely dependent
on any one aspect of their lives, whether gender, race, class, sexuality or
age but rather a combination of all of the above and more besides. As an
analytic tool, it can be used to further understand the relationship that all
women, including those in the Global South, have with their environment,
without relying on gender typing or reducing an experience to the sole
category of gender.
For more than thirty years, ecofeminism has been taking into account
the interconnected nature of social categories such as gender, race, class,
sexuality, caste, species, religion, nationality, dis/ability, and issues such as
colonialism. It has also challenged anthropocentric modes of thought, by

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 71

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 incorporating both species and the natural environment into the ongoing
debate concerning the workings of social categorization and identity con-
struction. However, we need to be careful in characterizing earlier ecofem-
inist work as intersectional. Although it is certainly true that ecofeminism
did often engage with intersectional approaches, it did not adopt inter-
sectionality as the conceptual tool we currently understand it to be. A
conflation of intersectionality with the non-explicit ecofeminist use of
intersectional concepts risks reducing the important and often original
theoretical and practical contributions, which intersectionality has made
to academia.
However, there are many examples within early ecofeminism (and its
antecedents) which clearly display engagement with the multiple dimen-
sions of social categories. For instance, Mary Daly discussed the way in
which class intersected with women’s experiences of discrimination (1978)
in her historical account of the development of radical feminism. Val
Plumwood claimed that gender, race, class, and nature were the tectonic
plates of liberation theory (1993, 1) and that the interfacing of indigene-
ity, gender, nation, species, and class were essential (53) in overcoming the
man’s mastery of nature. Carol J. Adams in ‘The Sexual Politics of Meat’
(1990) included animals within the ecofeminist framework: to explore
the links between meat eating and patriarchy. Environmental and feminist
activism have also led the way in deconstructing barriers, by promoting
and encouraging ‘intersectional’ dialogue. An edited collection of writings
published by the International Women’s Movement entitled, ‘Sisterhood is
Global’ (Morgan 1984) included work which attended to the full array of
social categories (including class, race, and colonialism/national identity)
and the way in which these categories influenced and intersected upon
each other.
In more recent times, ecofeminists have explicitly invoked intersec-
tionality throughout their work and used it to both promote inclusiv-
ity and to explore the ways in which intersectional analysis can improve
upon ecofeminist thought. Although it is difficult to find much ecofeminist
work that explicitly presents itself as intersectional (according to our cur-
rent understanding of the term), it appears that this is quickly changing.
While ecofeminism was using the ideas of intersectionality long before
it came to be defined as intersectionality, it is now transitioning through
a post-definition phase and into a period of application. It is important
to remain vigilant in continuing to evaluate the epistemic positioning of
intersectional theory, but this can now be done alongside the practical
application of the theory in fieldwork.

72 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Intersectional ecofeminist work has been particularly prominent in
research concerning both climate change and human relations with the
non-human other; recent work has highlighted the uneven distribution
of environmental burdens and the necessity of incorporating species into
intersectionality. Deborah Slicer (2015), Carol J. Adams and Lori Gruen
(2015), and Richard Twine (2010) have all explored the issues surround-
ing the use of an intersubjective, inter-species, and intersectional approach
towards environmentalism, feminism, and ecofeminism. Others, such
as Greta Gaard (2015) and Sherilyn MacGregor (2010) have added an
explicitly intersectional ecofeminist voice to the growing body of inter-
sectional work concerning climate change. Chris J. Cuomo and Nancy
Tuana’s specially edited issue of Hypatia (2014) highlighted the growing
interest in intersectional approaches towards climate change, with papers
contributing to ongoing research concerning the gendered impacts of cli-
mate change and the epistemological underpinning of an intersectional
ecological feminist approach. This work not only illustrates the unequal
impacts of climate change, which tend to affect those in the Global South
more seriously than those in the North, but also how context-specific
social structures can influence a person’s vulnerability with respect to a
changing environment.
Intersectional theory is important in helping to recognize these unequal
experiences, not just between the North and South but also within these
very broad and non-homogenous categorizations (i.e. poorer, rural women
will likely experience more vulnerability than a middle-class urbanite).
Research has shown that (particularly in rural areas of the Global South)
it is most often women, who bear the brunt of the extra burdens cre-
ated by climate change and environmental degradation. Examples of this
include: having to travel further to collect water/food each day, higher
risk of reproductive/fertility health issues caused by drinking from a con-
taminated water supply, and being more likely to die in an ecological
disaster than their male counterparts (UN 2009). In spite of research
clearly demonstrating the increased vulnerability of women to environ-
mental threats and the economic, social, and political barriers, prevent-
ing women from being involved in decision-making processes, much
environmental and climate research remains ignorant to issues of gen-
der, class, race, caste, and sexuality. This issue is illustrated in the debate
surrounding overpopulation, which is often presented as the root of all
environmental evil, with population control seen as the natural ‘cure-
all’ solution. The popularity of the ‘population control argument’ (Seager
2003, 969) points to some deeply troubling assumptions about women

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 73

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (particularly from the Global South) and their role in climate change mit-
igation and also their potential blameworthiness for the environmental
problems of the twenty-first century. Focus on population control not
only leads to governmental interference with the female body but it also
masks two of the real culprits behind climate change: overconsumption
and corporate greed. An intersectional ecofeminism helps to avoid this
type of limited analysis: which establishes conclusions and recommen-
dations based upon a very specific, cultural, historical, and contextual
epoch.
Clearly, the need for intersectional analysis has never been more real,
which is why the lack of a widespread consensus about approaching
issues such as climate change and environmental degradation in an inter-
sectional manner is all the more worrying. Climate change is a ‘wicked
problem’ in the sense that it cannot be successfully understood in any way
which is not intersectional. Attempts to do so inevitably lead to confusion,
and ultimately to failure because they fail to recognize and account for
the complex nature of the impacts and burdens of climate change, which
often disproportionately affect those at neglected points of an intersec-
tion. Intersectionality (under an intracategorical approach) encourages
the acknowledgement of the current structures of power under which we
exist, and by temporarily stabilizing social categories, it allows researchers
the opportunity to offer more constructive and culturally sensitive anal-
yses. In the following section, I will examine the ways in which intersec-
tional ecofeminism has developed in India and how it can help us to better
understand the experiences of women.

INDIAN ECOFEMINISM AND INTERSECTIONALITY

Synonymous with the phrase ‘Indian ecofeminism ‘or ‘Indian environ-
mentalism’ is the academic, writer, and activist: Vandana Shiva, who can
be described as the most influential and articulate advocate of ‘third world’
ecofeminism (Shoba 2013, 40). Shiva, in her foundational work, Staying
Alive: Women, Ecology and Survival in India (1988) states that women’s
environmentalism in India precedes ecofeminism as found in the West in
events such as the UN’s ‘women’s’ decade (1988, 64) or the Clayoquot or
Greenham Common encampments. The roots of women’s involvement
with the environmental movement in India can be traced back as far as
three hundred years, to the beginning of the Chipko movement, when
300 women in Rajasthan sacrificed their lives to protect sacred khejri
trees. Shiva claims that Indian ecofeminism has the potential to “lay the

 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
foundations for the recovery of the feminine principle in nature and soci-
ety” (1988, 215); which is important because, the ‘feminine principle’
(which is also known in Hindu as Shakti or Prakriti) is the “living force
that supports life” (Shiva, 1988, xvii).
This notion forms part of a dramatically different vision of human-
ity’s relationship with the environment, compared to the traditional
Western Cartesian conception of reality which enforces notions of the
duality between men/women and person/nature. In Indian cosmology, it
is the idea of unity, not a dichotomy, which Shiva claims helps to inform
an ‘ethic of care’ towards the environment (39–40) which makes the rela-
tionship between women and nature not simply a socially developed ‘inti-
macy’ but a biologically necessary one.
Women in the Global South have developed an intimacy with
their natural surroundings in an attempt to protect and preserve local
resources. Moreover, women, through their role as ‘producers’ both
socially and reproductively, are uniquely able to understand “the costs
of technologies which pillage the Earth’s natural riches” and help pro-
vide potential solutions to them (Diamond & Orenstein 1990, x). Shiva’s
claims are similar to those made by Carol Christ, Starhawk and Charlene
Spretnak in 1990 in that they place women as close to nature socially,
culturally, and biologically and enthusiastically adopt the notion of a
spiritual ecofeminism.
Shiva’s belief that the subjugation of the feminine principle is respon-
sible for the continued exploitation of both women and the environ-
ment does little to contradict the labelling of her work as essentialist.
Problematically, Shiva fails to address the patriarchal structures within
Hinduism or to interrogate the principles of Prakriti (the feminine prin-
ciple) and Purusha (the masculine principle) themselves, as contributing
to and being part of a complex structure of social, political, and religious
relations, under the influence of an oppressive caste system. In taking
her research from rural communities in the northwest of India and using
it to make generalizations about the entire Global South, Shiva ignored
the vastly differing experiences of women from other backgrounds.
Shiva’s ‘essentialist views’ have been strongly rejected by Bina Agarwal
(1998) and Meera Nanda (1991, 2005) as a form of ‘cultural ecofem-
inism’ which romanticizes the role of women and their relationship
with the environment. Such romantic outlooks about the relationship
between women and nature, of the kind discussed by Archana Prasad in
Against Ecological Romanticism (2011), reinforce gendered stereotypes

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 75

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 and prevent the development of a mutually beneficial dialogue. Shiva’s
oversimplified version of Hinduism illustrates her uncritical views con-
cerning the domination of women and the environment in India and the
Global South. In assuming that the notion of the ‘feminine principle’ is
relevant to all women, and not just a small pocket of practicing Hindus
in Northern India, Shiva only alienates those who would benefit most
from her work.
As a socialist feminist, Shiva also argues that the Western patriarchal
and capitalist worldview is responsible for the majority of Indian and
‘Third World’ environmental degradation (Shiva 1988, 219). Such degra-
dation is particularly prevalent in the form of
“maldevelopment” (4) a term coined by Shiva to describe the pro-
cesses of ‘development’ taking place without consideration of an ethic
of ecological protection and conservation. Maldevelopment is a very
real environmental issue, but Shiva gives an intellectually disingenu-
ous portrayal of the West as the sole inventors of science (Nanda 2005,
178). Who, under the guise of development (postcolonialism), have
been solely responsible for the degradation of the environment in India
and the rest of the Global South. Shiva’s emphasis on outside factors
as being responsible for the subjugation of women and nature in India
prevents us from seeing other forms of oppression in the Global South,
particularly institutionalised and structural discrimination. Agarwal
and Sowmya Dechamma (2011) have noted that Shiva has ignored
pre-existing inequalities such as “caste, class, power, privilege, and prop-
erty relations which predate colonialism” (Agarwal in Rao 2012, 130),
all of which are likely to have had a significant role in the creation of
current systems of domination.
Agarwal herself presents an intersectional form of ecofeminism
termed feminist environmentalism (Agarwal 2000, 300) which she uses
to relate women and ecology while also taking into account the influence
of class, gender, and caste on the structures of power. Agarwal claims that
the relationship women share with the environment is not biologically
determined but rather one which is variable. The ‘closeness’ of their rela-
tionship and the greater interest that women may take in the preservation
and protection of natural resources, as compared to their male counter-
parts, has more to do with their role in society as based on class and caste
than it does with any necessary or biological connection. The division
of resources and labor are factors which greatly influence gender differ-
ences in attitudes towards the conservation of the environment, with rural

76 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
women more likely to take an active role in its protection given the degree
of their dependency on nature for subsistence and survival. As such, any
ecofeminist account of Indian environmentalism must be sensitive to these
factors, including class, culture, and ethnicity, when making observations
and conclusions about the connection and relationship that women have
with the natural world.
Attempts to romanticise the relationship between women and nature
by first universalising the experience of ‘one kind of woman’ and then
appealing to some essential ‘essence’ or necessary connection, leads those
into a trap whereby one becomes blinded to the multitude of ways in
which the concept of ‘womanhood’ is implicated in the continued con-
straints and exploitations experienced by women and the natural envi-
ronment. The divorce of mankind from the natural world (where women
supposedly reside) allows for women to be perceived as being closer to
nature, when in reality they are as much part of nature as the rest of
humanity, whereas the achievement of manhood seems to be entirely
dependent upon men distancing themselves from this fact.
Much of the concern about the functionality of ecofeminism, lies in
determining the conditions of womanhood, if indeed there are any. This
ongoing epistemological debate (Brandy Daniels 2016) is one which not
only affects ecofeminism but the foundations of feminism as a whole.
This debate (necessary though it is) should not and has not stopped
‘real’ research from being conducted in the meantime, it is this to which
I shall now turn. I will illustrate how intersectionality has the potential
to be used in India to aid in the ecofeminist inquiry concerning (in this
particular case) the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals
(2, 3, and 7) and the future achievement of the Sustainable Development
Goals.

INTERSECTIONAL ECOFEMINISM IN INDIA AND THE CASE OF

MENSTRUAL HYGIENE
Ecofeminist research cannot successfully be completed while primar-
ily referring only to the socially constructed category of gender because
doing so does not demonstrate sensitivity to the potential complexity
of issues involved or reflect the multitude of inter-connecting factors
which influence the outcomes. Failure to incorporate other factors such
as caste, class, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality into ecofeminist analysis
by focusing solely on gender will severely limit the ability of researchers
to interpret actions and offer practical and informative critique on the

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 77

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 nature of oppressions experienced by both women and nature. The role
of gender in the oppression of rural, Dalit, and tribal women living in
India, might have a smaller part to play than the influence of the caste
system.
Carr and Thompson claim that the identification of gender can no
longer suffice in the analysis of the real complexities of life experienced
by women in the Global South (2013, 213). This point is further justified
by Banerjee and Bell’s ‘shocking’ discovery that references to gender con-
stituted “less than 3.9% of articles in the top five social science journals
[between 1980–2005]” (2007, 4). It is important that ecofeminism takes
the notion of intersectionality and the influence of ‘other’ factors such as
caste seriously if it is to be effective in analysing so-called ‘women’s issues’
in the Global South. Especially considering that current ecofeminist schol-
arship has not, so far at least, fully explored the relationship between
Dalits and environmentalism. Using intersectionality as an analytic tool,
one would be able to fully explore these multileveled points of intersec-
tion and in doing so create a more compelling (and thorough) analysis
of the twin dominations of women and nature. Using intersectionality in
ecofeminist analysis helps to promote a holistic approach to issues in the
Global South as wide-ranging as, climate change, land rights, women’s
empowerment, activism, tribal movements, and even problems such as
women’s equality in education and menstrual hygiene.
The Millennium Development Goals set out at the 2000 UN Summit
for Development, aimed to put “development at the heart of the political
agenda” (Unterhalter 2005, 11). However, few low-income countries were
ever on target for achieving these goals by 2015 (Cohen et al. 2014), and
if these levels of progress are to be improved upon by 2030 (the end-date
of the Sustainable Development Goals), then intersectional approaches
must be foregrounded. Menstrual hygiene is a good example of an issue
which has multiple connections relating to environmental injustice, espe-
cially as menstrual hygiene and its management was a neglected condi-
tion of achieving several of the MDGs, including MDG7 which promoted
sustainable development. Achievement of MDG7 and its related SDGs
(e.g.  3, 6, 7, and 13) will remain impossible until the environmental
injustices, caused by a lack of sustained attention to menstrual hygiene
management, are tackled. In order to address these ‘injustices’ govern-
ments, political actors and charities must ensure that women have access
to clean safe toilets, proper sanitary protection, and (especially important
in this context) availability of an appropriate and environmentally sound

78 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
method of waste disposal. The prejudices women face on a daily basis,
stemming from issues concerning their menstrual hygiene, are often more
to do with factors such as class, religion, ethnicity, and caste, than gender.
The experiences of a female subsistence farmer in rural India, for example,
will be wildly different to those of a female university lecturer in urban
India. Their variable experiences will be based on differing upbringings,
ethnicity, and class, with the former much more likely to have experienced
issues relating to their access to menstrual management facilities (Oster
and Thornton 2010, 25).
The environmental burdens on the local natural environments in
rural India, Nepal, and Pakistan (for instance) caused by, at least in
part, the insufficient infrastructure for handling menstrual management.
Problems range from the pollution of local water systems caused by
disposal of sanitary waste to air pollution resulting from the burning
of waste in an inappropriate and environmentally unsound manner. An
intersectional analytical framework would help researchers to under-
stand the various roles religion, caste, and class play in the outcomes
of this issue. Any analysis which focuses solely on one factor, such as
gender, as a significant mode of oppression (and cause of environmental
injustices relating to menstrual hygiene and management) severely lim-
its our understanding of the other multiple intersecting factors which
influence menstrual hygiene and its impacts on the environment. One
must be careful not to discuss a ‘female perspective,’ but instead attempt
to critically engage with the particular and individual experiences of
women or groups of women if one is to make substantial theoretical
claims with practical import.
It is possible to overcome these environmental injustices, by taking an
intersectional approach by seeking a holistic vision of society that explores
the complex intersections that cause environmental injustices, such as the
ones discussed in this paper. An effective, community-led, grassroots level
project which takes into account the multiplicity of factors influencing
the actions of players involved, will have a much higher chance of success
than a non-intersectional and top-down approach. This is illustrated by
Procter and Gamble, who have poured vast amounts of money ($5 million
dollars) into providing Western-style sanitary protection to girls living in
the Global South in spite of low rates of success (Oster and Thornton
2010, 2). Questions have been raised over the suitability of modern, san-
itary towels and tampons in communities which are tribal or rural and
have little contact with the ‘outside world’ (WaterAid 2009, 2). Whereas

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in Uttar Pradesh the local economy has been boosted by local workers
who are involved in the production of ecologically-friendly sanitary pads
(Tjon A Ten 2007, 7). As they are made of cloth and contain wood-ash,
they can be broken down easily, which is essential in communities like
those in Maharashtra if the sanitary waste is to be successfully composted
in the dedicated wells contained in many of the latrines there.
Projects which attempt to resolve the issue of menstrual hygiene must
be sensitive to local conditions, especially in relation to the environmental
consequences of simply copying Western models of menstrual manage-
ment. Projects must take into account the vastly different experiences and
needs of women living in the rural Global South and cannot be based
solely on gender but rather a multitude of other types of oppressions from
caste to class. The SDGs of universal primary education, gender equal-
ity, and environmental sustainability will, at least in part, be decided by
the capacity of political ‘players’ to understand and effectively implement
the infrastructure necessary for women to properly see to their menstrual
hygiene needs. These include access to functional toilets in schools, ade-
quate sanitary protection, and the ability to dispose of waste materials in
a safe and environmentally sustainable manner.
In India alone, there are still 128,000 schools which have no func-
tional toilet and a further 61,000 have no running water (Gohain 2013).
This global water and sanitation ‘crisis’ has the most impact upon women,
who have been systematically excluded from the decision-making pro-
cesses concerning both water and sanitation despite being the ones who
have most to lose. These current inadequacies have vast implications on
the ability of girls and women to take part in their daily activities when
they are menstruating, with many girls being forced to stay at home from
school during the course of their menses rather than risk bringing shame
and embarrassment to their family (Oster and Thornton 2010, 25). Other
problems do however materialize for girls who are ‘allowed’ to continue
attending school during their menstruation, such as lack of access to toi-
lets, running water, and sanitary protection, which in the long term could
cause serious problems for their attendance and academic performance.
Lack of such adequate facilities, particularly in rural Indian regions,
means that women are not sufficiently able to attend to their biological
needs and as such are often left at a severe disadvantage to their male
counterparts.
The environmental consequences of insufficient facilities are vast,
and studies completed in South Asia, India (Tjon A Ten 2007), Nepal

80 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
(WaterAid 2009), and Pakistan (Shah et al. 2013) have all shown that
the popularity of tampons and sanitary pads soon fades when the novelty
wears off and reality sets in. The reality in this case being, that there is
simply no hygienic and environmentally sustainable method for the dis-
posal of used products. With no garbage collection, the methods of dis-
posal available are severely limited to burning, burying or throwing away
the waste, leading to problems such as clogged toilets and the “pollution
of the local environment...like the streams in villages” (WaterAid 2009,
19), which in turn makes it impossible to achieve MDG7 (environmental
sustainability). All of which begs the question as to why, with no empirical
backing, such vast sums of money are being poured into this particular
arm of development?
Ecofeminist analysis which focuses only on gender as a significant
mode of oppression severely limits our understanding of the other multi-
ple intersecting factors which influence menstrual hygiene and its impacts
on the environment. The prejudices women face on a daily basis in rela-
tion to their menstrual hygiene, often have more to do with factors such
as class, religion, ethnicity, and caste than gender, yet non-intersectional
research fails because it does not take these issues into account. An inter-
sectional analytical framework helps researchers understand the various
roles of religion, caste, and class (among other important factors) in the
outcome of a wide range of issues which in this case affect women and the
environment. In South Asia (particularly in Rural/Tribal Communities)
for example, the social and cultural norms perpetuate the “myths and
taboos which restrict women and girl’s participation in society” which are
rooted in the idea that women are dirty, impure, or unclean (Bharadwaj
and Patkar 2004, 1011)—taboos that are reinforced by religious prac-
tices (whether Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity7). A survey conducted
in South Gujarat (Shah et al. 2013) found that restrictions placed on
menstruating adolescent girls were largest in rural tribal regions of India
where 89% of respondents claimed that they were restricted as to what
they could touch, and just under 35% of girls were not even ‘allowed’ to
leave the house alone (207). Oster and Thornton (2010) found that the
majority of girls did not have access to a functional toilet at home and
66% of respondents stated that they had no choice but attend to their
menstrual hygiene needs in an open field and often in the dark to avoid
being seen (29).
Ecofeminist analysis which does not use intersectionality as a tool to
engage with multiple points of oppression has on occasion been ignorant

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 81

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 of the factors of class and caste and as such has tended to “idealize move-
ments that have Brahmin and middle-class heads and uses Dalits as the
masses or victims” (Nalunnakkal cited by Kaijser and Kronsell 2014,
423). Such views ignore the capacity of rural, tribal and Dalit women to
be active in political and environmental movements which seek to bring
about the placement of infrastructure which will bring them greater free-
doms. Discrimination is not merely about gender or race or class, but
rather an intersection of these different social identities which lead to the
generation of various locations of vulnerability. Intersectionality gives
a voice to those marginalized in an already vulnerable subset, such as
women (Kaijser and Kronsell 2014, 426) and in doing so makes intersec-
tionality a valuable tool to ‘sensitize’ researchers to other areas in need
of further critical thinking in India, the Global South, and the world as a
whole.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
Some ecofeminists have suggested that ecofeminism should change
its name to better reflect this ‘new’ intersectional approach. Sherilyn
MacGregor uses the term ‘feminist, ecological citizenship’ (2010) and
Greta Gaard simply calls it the ‘new ecofeminism’ (2011). While I
wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments contained within such new
namesakes, I also find the move to rename the discipline completely
unnecessary. Karen Warren was correct in comparing ecofeminism to the
process of quilting in that its appearance is constantly evolving (2000,
67). While the borders of said quilt act as the boundaries of our discus-
sion, the patches which provide the quilt with its ‘quilt-ness’ are created
by the diversity of perspectives and multitude of opinions from a grass-
roots level upwards. Ecofeminism is a continually evolving academic/
activist tradition and one which it is impossible to completely define in a
set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Ecofeminism and intersection-
ality are both theories in-progress and as such should not be viewed as
a static method of theorizing, but rather one which continues to adapt
according to the changing political and environmental landscape in
which it finds itself.
Intersectionality represents a Kuhnian paradigm shift (1962) within
ecofeminism and as such it should be treated with optimistic caution,
especially since there is no guarantee of its future survival or success. It
may have become fashionable to characterize one’s writing as intersec-
tional, but this sometimes uncritical labelling can be more of a hindrance

82 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
than a help, allowing scholars, policy makers, and NGOs to pay lip ser-
vice to inclusivity while simultaneously reinforcing the status quo. We
must avoid this at all costs. In order to do this, we ought to be realistic
about the potential of intersectionality and the methodological frame-
works currently available. Intersectionality does not offer a complete
and infallible solution to the issues of difference. However, it does offer
a way to interrogate our assumptions and epistemological positioning
before undertaking research, while also taking into account the mutu-
ally shaping nature of social categories, the multi-levelled structures of
power, and their influence on identity and discrimination. Engaging with
intersectionality can help to sensitize ourselves and others to the ways in
which different forms of disadvantage can act as a method of silencing
the most vulnerable and oppressed. Of course, there are plenty of import-
ant questions still left to be answered, but in the meantime, this should
not prevent us from continuing along the path of intersectional ecofem-
inism or from adopting an intersectional approach in our personal and
working lives.

REFERENCES
Adams, Carol J. 1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-vegetarian Critical
Theory. New York: Continuum Publishing Company.
Adams, Carol J. and Gruen, Lori. 2015. Ecofeminism: Feminist Intersections with
other Animals and the Earth. New York: Bloomsbury.
Anthias, Floya. 2012. “Intersectional What? Social Divisions, Intersectionality and
Levels of Analysis.” Ethnicities 13(1): 3–19.
Agarwal, Bina. 1998. “Environmental Management, Equity, and Ecofeminism:
Debating India’s Experience.” Journal of Peasant Studies 25(4): 55–95.
___________. 2000. “Conceptualising environmental collective action: why gen-
der matters.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 24(3): 283–310.
___________. 2002. Are We Not Peasants Too? Land Rights and Women’s Claims
in India. New York: The Population Council.
Babbit, S.E. and Campbell, S. 1999. Racism and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Banerjee, Damayanti. and Bell, Michael.M. 2007. “Ecogender: Locating Gender in
Environmental Social Science.” Society and Natural Society 20(1): 3–19.
Biehl, Janet. 1991. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Bilge, Sirma. 2010. “Recent Feminist Outlooks on Intersectionality.” Diogenes
57(1): 58–72.
Bharadwaj, Sowmyaa. and Patkar, Archana. 2004. Menstrual Hygiene and Man-
agement in Developing Countries: Taking Stock. Mumbai, India: Junction So-
cial: Social Development Consultants.

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 83

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Brah, Avtar. and Ann Phoenix. 2004. “Ain’t I A Woman? Revisiting Intersectional-
ity.” Journal of International Women’s Studies 5(3): 75–86.
Buckingham, Susan. 2004. “Ecofeminism in the Twenty-First Century.” The Geo-
graphical Journal 170 (1): 146–54.
Butler, Judith. 1989. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. and Joan.W. Scott. 1992. Feminists Theorize the Political. New
York: Routledge.
Carbin, Maria. and Sara Edenheim. 2013. “The Intersectional Turn in Feminist
Theory: A Dream of a Common Language.” European Journal of Women’s
Studies 20(3): 233–48.
Carr, Edward R. and Mary C. Thomson. 2014. “Gender and Climate Change Ad-
aptation in Agrarian Settings: Current Thinking, New Directions, and Research
Frontiers.” Geography Compass 8(3): 182–97.
Christ, Carol .P. 1990. “Rethinking Theology and Nature,” in Reweaving the
World. The Emergence of Ecofeminism, edited by I. Diamond and G.F. Oren-
stein, 58–72. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Cohen, R.L., Alfonso, Y.N., Adam, T., Kuruvilla, S., Schweitzer, J., and Bishai, D.
2014. “Country Progress Towards the Millennium Development Goals: Adjust-
ing for Socioeconomic Factors Reveals Greater Progress and New Challenges.”
Global Health 10(67): 1–19.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex:
A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine.” The University of
Chicago Legal Forum: 139–67.
_______. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Vi-
olence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–99.
Daly, Mary. 1978. Gyn/Ecology. The Metaethics of Radical Feminism. Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.
Daniels, Brandy. 2016. “Grace Beyond Nature? Beyond Embodiment as Essential-
ism: A Christological Critique.” Feminist Theology 24(3): 245–59.
Davis, Kathy. 2008. “Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspec-
tive on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful.” Feminist Theory 9(1): 67–85.
Davis, Murray. S. 1971. “That’s Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of So-
ciology and a Sociology of Phenomenology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences
23(5): 1309–44.
_______.1986. “That’s Classic!” The Phenomenology and Rhetoric of Successful
Social Theories.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 16(3): 285–301.
Dechamma, Sowmya. 2009. “Ecofeminism and its Discontents: The Indian Con-
text.” Kvinder, Køn & Forskning 2009(3–4): 101–07.
Denis, Ann. 2008. “Intersectional Analysis: A Contribution of Feminism to Sociol-
ogy.” International Sociology 23 (5): 677–694.
Diamond, Irene. and Gloria, F. Orenstein. 1990. Reweaving the World: The Emer-
gence of Ecofeminism. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Dobson, Andrew. 1995. Green Political Thought. London, UK: Routledge.
Gaard, Greta. 2000. “Review: Woman the Hunter.” Environmental Ethics 22(2):
203–06.
_______. 2011. “Ecofeminism Revisited: Rejecting Essentialism and Replacing
Species in a Material Feminist Environmentalism.” Feminist Formations 23(4):
26–53.
_______. 2015. “Ecofeminism and Climate Change” Women’s Studies Internation-
al Forum 49 (March-April): 20–33.
Garry, Ann, 2011. “Intersectionality, Metaphors, and the Multiplicity of Gender.”
Hypatia 26(4): 826–50.
Gohain, Manash, P. 2013. “Three Years After RTE, 1.3L Schools Have No Toi-
lets.” The Times of India. Accessed July 2016 at http://articles.timesofindia
.indiatimes.com/20130920/news/42251950_1_toiletsdrinkingwaterfacility
schoolinfrastructure
Griffin, Susan. 1978. Women and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her. New York:
Harper and Row.
Gruen, Lori. 2009. “Attending to Nature. Empathetic Engagement with The More
Than Human World.” Ethics and the Environment 14(2): 23–38.
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. New York: Cornell
University Press.
Hill Collins, Patricia. 2015. “Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas.” The An-
nual Review of Sociology 41(2015): 1–20
Hintz, John, G. 2003 “Review: Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of
Reason by Val Plumwood.” Human Ecology Review 10(1): 77–81.
Kaijsar, Annica. and Kronsell Anna. 2014. “Climate Change Through the Lens of
Intersectionality.” Environmental Politics 23 (3): 417–33.
Kant, Immanuel. 1928. The Critique of Judgement. Translated by J.C. Meredith.
Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Hulko, Wendy. 2009. “The Time- and Context-Contingent Nature of Intersection-
ality and Interlocking Oppressions.” Affilia 24(1): 44–55.
Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Freedom, CA: Crossing
Press.
Lykke, Nina. 2005. “Intersectionality Revisited: Problems and Potentials.” Kvin-
novetenskaplig tidskrift 2(3): 7–17.
Lykke, Nina. 2010. Feminist Studies. A Guide to Intersectional Theory, Methodol-
ogy and Writing. New York: Routledge.
McDowell, Linda. 2008 “Thinking Through Work: Complex Inequalities, Con-
structions of Difference and Transnational Migrants.” Progress in Human Ge-
ography 32(4): 491–507.
McCall, Leslie. 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1771–800.

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 85

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MacGregor, Sherilyn. 2010. “‘Gender and Climate Change’: From Impacts to Dis-
courses,” Journal of the Indian Ocean Region 6(2): 223–38.
Mallory, Chaone. 2010. “What is Ecofeminist Political Philosophy? Gender, Na-
ture and the Political.” Environmental Ethics 32(3): 305–22.
Matsuda, Mari. J. 1991 “Beside My Sister, Facing the Enemy: Legal Theory out of
Coalition.” Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1183–92.
Mehrotra, Gita. 2010. “Toward a Continuum of Intersectionality Theorizing for
Feminist Social Work Scholarship.” Affilia 25(4): 417–30.
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology, and the Scien-
tific Revolution. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row.
Morgan, Robin. 1984. Sisterhood is Global: The International Women’s Move-
ment Anthology. New York: Feminist Press at the City University of New York.
Nanda, Meera. 1991. “Is Modern Science a Western Patriarchal Myth? A Critique
of the Populist Orthodoxy.” South Asian Bulletin 11(1 & 2): 12.
_______. 2005. “Response to Critics.” Social Epistemology 19(1): 147–91.
Nash, Jennifer .C. 2008. “Rethinking Intersectionality.” Feminist Review 89(1):
1–15.
Oster, Emily. and Rebecca Thornton. 2010. “Menstruation, Sanitary Products, and
School Attendance: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation.” Online Paper,
accessed july 2016 at http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/seminarpapers/dg10052010_1.pdf
Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London, UK: Rout-
ledge.
Prasad, Archana. 2011. Against Ecological Romanticism. Gurgaon, India: Three
Essays Collective.
Rao, Manisha. 2012. “Ecofeminism at the Crossroads in India: A Review.” Depor-
tate. Esuli, profughe 20: 124–42.
Shah, S.P., Nair, R., Shah, P.P., Modi, D.K., Desai, A.S. and Desai, L. 2013. “Im-
proving Quality of Life With New Menstrual Hygiene Practices Among Ad-
olescent Tribal Girls in Rural Gujarat, India.” Reproductive Health Matters
21(41): 205–13.
Shiva, Vandana. 1988. Staying Alive. Women, Ecology and Survival in India. Lon-
don, UK: Zed Books.
_______. 1990. “Development as a New Project of Western Patriarchy.” In Re-
weaving the World: The Emergence of Ecofeminism, edited by I. Diamond and
G.F. Orenstein, 189–200. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Shoba, K.N. 2013. “Ecofeminist Discourse in Postcolonial India: A Critique of
Capitalism, Modernity, and Patriarchy.” International Journal of English Lan-
guage, Literature and Humanities 1(3): 39–50.
Slicer, Deborah. 2015. “More Joy.” Ethics and the Environment. 20(2): 1–23.
Spretnak, Charlene. 1990. “Ecofeminism: Our Roots and Flowering.” In Re-
weaving the World. The Emergence of Ecofeminism, edited by Diamond and
G.F. Orenstein, 3–14. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

86 ETHICS & THE ENVIRONMENT, 22(1) 2017

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stange, Mary, Z and Carol, K. Oyster. 2000. Gun Women: Firearms and Feminism
in Contemporary America. New York: New York Press.
Stanley, Liz. and Sue Wise. 2000. “But the Empress Has no Clothes! Some Awk-
ward Questions about the “Missing Revolution.” In Feminist Theory.” Feminist
Theory 1(3): 261–88.
Starhawk. 1990. “Power, Authority, and Mastery: Ecofeminism and Earth-based
Spirituality.” In Reweaving the World. The Emergence of Ecofeminism, edit-
ed by I. Diamond and G.F. Orenstein, 73–86. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club
Books.
Tjon A Ten, Varina. 2007. Menstrual Hygiene: A Neglected Condition for the
Achievement of Several Millennium Development Goals. Brussels, Belgium:
EEPA.
Tøllefsen, I.B. 2011. “Ecofeminism, Religion and Nature in an Indian and Global
Perspective.” Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review 2(1): 89–95.
Twine, Richard. 2010. “Intersectional Disgust? Animals and (Eco)Feminism.”
Feminism in Psychology 20(3): 397–206.
Unterhalter, Elaine. 2005. “Global Inequality, Capabilities, Social Justice: The Mil-
lennium Development Goal for Gender Equality in Education.” International
Journal of Educational Development 25(2): 111–22.
Verloo, Mieke. 2006. “Multiple Inequalities, Intersectionality and the European
Union.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 13(3): 211–28.
Warren, Karen J. 1987. “Feminism and Ecology. Making Connections.” Environ-
mental Ethics 9(1): 320.
_______. 2000. Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on what it is and
why it Matters. Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield.
WaterAid. 2009. Is Menstrual Hygiene and Management an Issue for Adolescent
School Girls? A Comparative Case Study of Four Schools in Different Settings
of Nepal. Nepal: WaterAid Nepal.
Winker, Gabriele and Nina Degele. 2011. “Intersectionality as Multilevel Analysis:
Dealing with Social Inequality.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 18(1):
51–66.
Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2006. “Intersectionality and Feminist Politics.” European Jour-
nal of Women’s Studies 13(3): 193–209.

A.E. KINGS is a graduate student in the School of Politics, Philosophy,

International Relations, and Environmental Studies at Keele University.
E-mail: [email protected]

A.E. KINGS CHANGING FACE OF ECOFEMINISM 87

This content downloaded from

13.234.96.8 on Wed, 14 Sep 2022 10:34:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms