Comparing Western & Eastern Ecofeminist Perspectives

After completing more readings and research after last week’s “What is Ecofeminism?” post, I’ve gained more of an understanding of the differences that complicate a Western Ecofeminist lens vs. an Eastern one. Vandana Shiva, an Indian physicist and social activist, offers a view that bridges this gap between these two viewpoints of ecofeminism. Agarwal credits Shiva with taking Eastern ecofeminist principles “further than the Western ecofeminists in exploring the links between ways of thinking about development, the processes of developmental change, and the impact of these on the environment and on the people dependent upon it for their livelihood” (124). Inherent in this linear progression lies the difference between Western and Eastern ecofeminist perspectives. 

A Western lens focuses on the disparity between privileged women and men in a capitalistic society. Take Shiva as an example; she is a woman who has the unique viewpoint and exposure to highlight the differences between Eastern and Western ecofeminism. Shiva asserts that “the structures of exclusion are more systematically built up in American society, for example, so that young girls interested in science eventually lose their confidence over time. The structures of exclusion work against them” (Shiva 2). While the women in the West concern themselves with the unfair treatment instituted by patriarchal hierarchies within education, the workplace, and society as a whole, the women in the Global South or East are more concerned with pressing matters of domination and survival under the thumb of these same hierarchies.

Take water, for instance. In a post created by UN-Water, the United Nations identified that “without safely managed water, sanitation, and hygiene services, women and girls are more vulnerable to abuse, attack, and ill-health”(UN-Water). In the West, it’s not something that would cross most people’s minds, women included. A vast majority of the West has access to unlimited uncontaminated water on demand through faucets, showers, public drinking fountains, and countless other sources. However, this is not the case for so many other women, especially those in the Global South. These women “usually have the responsibility of fetching water… a dangerous, time-consuming and physically demanding task [which] can leave women and girls vulnerable to attack and often precludes them from school or earning an income” (UN-Water).

This is a danger that most women in the West don’t ever have to think about. Shiva articulates this point better than I ever could, and her viewpoint doesn’t just apply to the East, but also to the Global South. In an interview with Scott London, Shiva argues that for “people who are dependent on natural resources, on biodiversity, on the land, the forests, the water… nature is their means of production. So for them, ecological destruction is a form of injustice. When the forest is destroyed, when the river is dammed, when the biodiversity is stolen, when fields are waterlogged or turned saline because of economic activities, it is a question of survival for these people” (Shiva 3-4). The fact of the matter is that the Eastern view of ecofeminism has a lot more at stake than the West. Western ecofeminists focus on the oppression that they face but do not take into consideration the different and unique obstacles that women in less fortunate countries struggle against.

Agarwal writes that it is “the growth of a market-oriented culture [that] undermine[s] the image of an organic cosmos with a living female earth at its center. This image [gives] way to a mechanistic worldview in which nature [is] reconceived as something to be mastered and controlled by humans” (122). This is when the greed and dominating capitalistic principles of the West seep into the East by means of wealthy companies and corporations who seek to monetize more and more of nature and more and more of people who they view as for the purpose of utilization only.

On the other hand, Agarwal summarizes Shiva’s argument for Eastern ecofeminism in that it prioritizes the “special dependence” that ‘Third World Women’ have on nature and, in turn, the “special knowledge” that they have of nature (Agwarwal 124). It is this dependence that creates an unreplicable respect for the earth. Since women in the Global South or East are assigned more nature-based responsibilities than women in the West, like being the ones to fetch water in the village (UN-Water), they form an interconnectedness with the earth that is both inherent and assumed by dominating patriarchal hierarchies that are distanced from nature. 

It is this interconnectedness, this unreplicable familiarity, and “knowledge [that] has been systematically marginalized under the impact of modern science” (Agarwal 124). This is the patriarchal “myth of progress” and the resulting “detrimental effects on the human-nature relationship” that Hobgood-Oster mentions in her piece Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution. This perpetuated myth pushes the quantifying of our advancement as humans in the terms of scientific progress, even when those advancements are nothing more than greedy schemes. 

So often, patriarchal and capitalist scientific endeavors (like the patenting of seeds to ensure the Southern or Eastern dependence on Big Agriculture corporations like Monsanto) are institutionalized globally by these powerful and money-hungry corporations who dress up their exploitation of women, indigenous cultures and practices, and nature as a scientific advancement. They say that that will feed or house more people, but in reality, the goal is to form a monopoly to economically dominate an entire people. In an interview with Dr. Vandana Shiva, interviewer Scott London summarizes Shiva’a point discussing this idea by saying, “We’ve tended to justify these monocultures in the name of growth and human development” (Shiva 5) —and that’s just not true at all. Instead, it is this “noble” pursuit that’s nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing; it’s a way for those placed in power by the androcentric hierarchies in play to justify domination.

On the flip side, Western ecofeminism seeks to distance itself from instrumentalist thought that embedded itself in its culture from the time of Genesis in The Bible. The Eastern perspective of ecofeminism doesn’t fully situate the earth as having intrinsic value. Instead, nature is viewed as having “gifted…rich biological diversity to us. [And that is why] we [should] not allow it to become the monopoly of a handful of corporations” (Shiva 7). Eastern ecofeminists focus more on people’s (especially women’s) dependence on nature to grow food, build shelter, and provide a means of production. They view the means as nature’s offerings, but this idea is still inherently instrumentalist in that the earth is meant to offer us anything, that it is to support humans, and the consumption of humans, if not solely, then as a priority.

After exploring both the Western and Eastern views of ecofeminism, I think my definition would fall somewhere in the middle. I see how Western ecofeminism is a privileged form of feminism that doesn’t take into account the nuanced and dangerous oppression that befalls those in other countries, especially ones less fortunate than ours.

However, I don’t agree with the inherent instrumentalist thinking that underlies Eastern ecofeminism in believing that we are gifted things by nature—like water or seeds. I don’t think anything that is encompassed by nature is an offering to us. What I do believe is that these resources shouldn’t be monopolized by companies and instead should be available for respectful, conscious, and sustainable use. We must dismantle the indoctrinated patriarchal thought that things are anthropomorphic and for human benefit. We must move away from this fractured viewpoint that has “pitted equity against ecology and sustainability against justice” (Shiva 5). Ecofeminist principles could instead work to set the foundation for respectful harvesting, foraging, and agricultural practices so that we all can learn to leave the Earth better than how we found it. 

No longer should the planet’s resources be exploited for capitalist gain. By learning how to have compassion for nature around us, we can then begin to have compassion and empathy for each other, a kind of mutual respect that can transcend gender, race, culture, and any other characteristic that has previously driven a wedge between us all as an interconnected society who inhabits and must care for the earth we share. 

What do you see as the most pressing obstacles for ecofeminists to tackle? Do you agree more with the Western or Eastern perspective of ecofeminism?

Comment below; I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Works Cited

Agarwal, Bina. “The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India.” Feminist Studies, vol. 18, no. 1, 1992, pp. 119–158., https://doi.org/10.2307/3178217.

Hobgood-Oster, Laura. “Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution.” Systemic Alternatives, 18 Jan. 2016, systemicalternatives.org/2016/01/18/ecofeminism-historic-and-international-evolution/.

Shiva, Vandana, and Scott London. “In the Footsteps of Gandhi: An Interview with Vandana Shiva.” Global Research, GlobalResearch.ca, 3 Feb. 2016, https://www.globalresearch.ca/in-the-footsteps-of-gandhi-an-interview-with-vandana-shiva/5505135.

UN-Water. “Water and Gender: UN-Water.” United Nations, United Nations Water Organization, unwater.org/water-facts/water-and-gender#:~:text=Without%20safely%20managed%20water%2C%20sanitation,public%20spaces%20support%20gender%20equity.