Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethicsenviro 22 1 04
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
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
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
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.