Intersectional Ecofeminism – An Interconnected Web of Experience

Western society falls under the domain of a perpetuated patriarchal hierarchy that systemically categorizes characteristics into opposing binaries, with one having superiority over the other. It’s through this continuing reinforcement of privilege that those higher up the ranking (think: able-bodied, attractive, young, educated, Anglo-European, wealthy, English-speaking, white, cis-gender, heterosexual males) maintain their justification for domination. But the truth is that nature doesn’t conform to this hierarchical thinking.

In “The Ecology of Feminist and the Feminism of Ecology,” author and feminist teacher Ynestra King postulates that “life on earth is an interconnected web, not a hierarchy. There is no natural hierarchy; human hierarchy is projected onto nature and then used to justify social domination.” So in place of this false hierarchical system, King proposes that instead, we act through an anti-hierarchial interconnected web perspective. 

Unfortunately, too often, ecofeminist theories and principles have been based in essentialist thought. Whether this was intentional or not, it doesn’t erase essentialist underscoring. In an effort to emphasize the overlooked and oppressed perspective of women, ecofeminists have often based their hypotheses on one type of woman. 

 

Even ecofeminist powerhouses like the infamous Vandana Shiva, who is known as “the most influential and articulate advocate of ‘third world’ ecofeminism” (Kings 74), has fallen into the same trapping of essentialist views. In her piece “Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism,” ecofeminist theorist A. E. Kings writes that “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 [and her] ‘essentialist views’ have been strongly rejected…” (Kings 75). It’s this generalized, categorical, and essentialist ecofeminist stance that leaves all other marginalized and oppressed groups to the wayside—individuals with identities and voices that need to be amplified just as much as any type of woman. 

In an effort to erase essentialist ecofeminist views and create a diverse and inclusive theory that is sensitive to and accounts for the myriad of categorized identities that make up an individual, a new facet of ecofeminism was birthed—intersectional ecofeminism. 

We are all devised of a multiplicity of experience. And because our society is inherently hierarchical, each categorized identity affords either privilege or oppression. You can imagine how a wealthy white urbanite woman would experience different oppressions and privileges than a non-English speaking Haitian woman or a wheelchair-bound elderly gay man and so on. The first woman would experience oppression of gender while living within wealthy, white, urban privilege. The non-English speaking Haitian woman seems to have the odds set against her, but perhaps she is able-bodied, heterosexual, and educated. Those would all be privileged life experiences. 

In her article “The Difference Between Ecofeminism & Intersectional Environmentalism,” activist Leah Thomas draws the comparison that where “ecofeminism narrows in on gender, sexuality, and the patriarchy, intersectional environmentalism [or intersectional ecofeminism] creates space for all social injustices.” She also offers the personal anecdote that “mainstream feminist spaces didn’t always feel inclusive, representative, or safe; they didn’t acknowledge all the intersections of [her] identity and how it applied to [her] experience as a woman” (Thomas). It’s this excursion that intersectional ecofeminism set out to rewrite. Thomas concludes, “I realized that my Blackness shouldn’t be an extra ‘add-on’ to my feminism or my environmentalism. When intersectional theory is applied to both, I feel seen and heard in those spaces.” 

Intersectional ecofeminism seeks to dismantle the previously regarded essentialist and exclusionary view of ecofeminism that ignored mutually reinforcing oppressions that differ from woman to woman—person to person. 

Intersectional ecofeminism is anti-hierarchial and illustrates the ecofeminist interconnected web perspective. Kings asks her readers to envision intersectionality as being “a web of entanglement [with] each spoke of the web representing a continuum of different types of social categorization such as gender, sexuality, 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” (65). Instead of a step ladder, or polarizing categories of oppression and domination, the web perspective is intrinsically interconnected.

Furthermore, intersectional ecofeminism posits 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 intersection points…along [the web’s] fault lines” (Kings 71). A.E. Kings is saying that we must follow the web from string to string, intersection to intersection, and work to dismantle the hierarchical oppression and resulting bias for each and every “delineation” before freedom and equality can truly be achieved. 

We are at the point now where intersectional theories, especially intersectional ecofeminist theory, are imperative to understanding the multiplicity of reinforced oppressed identities that make up each individual. A. E. Kings put it best when she wrote, “ecofeminist analysis which focuses only on gender as a significant mode of oppression severely limits our understanding on the other multiple intersecting factors” (Kings 81). This is especially true when trying to gain the full scope of the oppression/domination continuum. 

In an early post on this blog titled “Comparing Western & Eastern Ecofeminist Perspectives,” I focused on the different lived experiences between women in the Global North and South. I wrote, “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.” It is because of women in the Global South’s heightened intersectional identities that lead to exponential oppression. We cannot base all of our ecofeminist theories on the Western woman’s perspective, or we will erase and further marginalize diverse voices that deserve to be amplified. We cannot simply copy Western models without taking into consideration the vast difference of experience between individuals, like women in the Global North vs. the Global South. The bottom line is that if we don’t approach all perspectives from an intersectional lens, we are effectively erasing unique experiences for the convenience of generalization. 

It’s inarguable that an intersectional ecofeminist lens of women and nature in the Global South is imperative to capturing the true scope of oppression and domination at play. Kings agrees when she says, by “using intersectionality as an analytic tool, one would be able to fully explore these multileveled points of intersection and in doing so create a more compelling (and thorough) analysis of the twin domination 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” (Kings 78). 

 

Through an inclusive ecofeminist view, the true oppression/domination continuum can be studied and dismantled accordingly. Essentializing identities strips marginalized voices from being heard and their needs being met. The only way forward is inclusionary—a theory that accounts for everyone’s inherent intersectionality. 

---

Works Cited:

King, Ynestra. “The Ecology of Feminism and the Feminism of Ecology.” Libcom.org, 27 Oct. 2019, libcom.org/article/ecology-feminism-and-feminism-ecology#:~:text=Ynestra%20King%20outlines%20the%20argument,oppression%2C%20whether%20social%20or%20ecological. 

Kings, A.E. “Intersectionality and the Changing Face of Ecofeminism.” Ethics & the Environment, vol. 22 no. 1, 2017, p. 63-87. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/660551.

Thomas, Leah. “The Difference Between Ecofeminism & Intersectional Environmentalism.” The Good Trade, 3 Feb. 2023, thegoodtrade.com/features/ecofeminism-intersectional-environmentalism-difference/.