To what extent should ecofeminists patiently and politely
midwife others to deeper levels of consciousness? Is analysis
always useful, or is intellectual inquiry an armchair, middle
class privilege and substitution for grassroots action?
These
questions were provoked by a passage in Anne Cameron's essay
in which she relates a telephone conversation she had with a
middle class white woman she met at an environmental
festival. The woman wanted to "get involved in some
environmental issues" and to spend a few days or a week
with Cameron to "discuss various options." With
undisguised scorn, Cameron scolded the woman "to stop
wasting her time and mine. To stop dithering and get
involved." Cameron suggested some worthwhile activities,
but was impatient and irritated with "endless
discussion" in lieu of "immediate action."
Most of us were appalled by Cameron's condescending and
judgmental behavior toward the woman. Cameron demonstrated
little understanding of or respect for the process of
attaining consciousness. As Amilcar Cabral, the African
freedom fighter, once said "Nobody is born a
revolutionary." Influenced by Charlene Spretnak's essay,
one woman felt that it is not so important where one
is on the continuum, but rather that one is on it.
Cameron admitted that the woman was "offended" and
"hurt." Why would she alienate a potential ally? In
failing to walk her talk, Cameron treated the woman with a
disdain generally exhibited by those in power.
When is "righteous rage" appropriate and when is
it counterproductive? Several women empathized with Cameron's
attitude toward indecisive do-gooders who can't seem to get
activated when to someone like Cameron the tasks are
"absolutely obvious." One woman suggested that
Cameron's frustration may be due to the burden of psychic
pain many of us carry as a result of our deep cognizance of
the endangered state of our species and the planet. Often
overfunctioning, we sometimes project animosity onto all
those who are underfunctioning, psychically or otherwise.
Perhaps we can take our cue from Mary Daly who writes of a
New Cognitive Minority of women who can "bear the
memories, learn from them, and open the way for change."
We concluded that Cameron's anger seemed largely directed
at middle class (white) privilege. While many working class
people and/or people of color are struggling simply to
survive "primary emergencies," the middle class,
she accuses, meditates on problems ad infinitum. She has a
point. It was acknowledged that if environmental and
ecofeminist values are to remain/become relevant to
liberation struggles, direct action is imperative. Women felt
that the thinking and the doing should receive equal
priority. Ecofeminist activist Connie Salamone further
advocates "commonness," her expression to describe
a down-to-Gaia approach to address ecological concerns in
ways that "my mother could understand."
We also discussed Cameron's contention that the term
ecofeminism is an "insult" to women, coined to
solicit male approval. One woman countered that men opposed
to feminism are not going to be any more placated by the word
ecofeminism. Are there, though, differences between feminism
and ecofeminism? Is ecofeminism conceptually new, or, as
Cameron believes, is it unnecessary, if not redundant? All of
us felt that feminism has never been monolithic, and that it
is myopic to presume one's own version of feminism represents
any authentic interpretation. There is liberal feminism,
socialist feminism, radical feminism, postfeminism, etc. None
of these feminisms completely articulate the multifarious
strands of ecofeminism.
Some women felt that mainstream
feminists view acceptance in the existing patriarchal system
as a goal in and of itself. Through inclusion, the argument
goes, feminists believe they can reform and humanize the
system. Although ecofeminists also participate in
"crisis management" struggles for women's rights
and needs within patriarchy, ecofeminist work and philosophy
are more informed by Ynestra King's classic declaration,
"We don't want a piece of your rotten, carcinogenic
pie." A mainstream feminist, for example, would demand
an equal right to participate in all levels of military
operations; an ecofeminist would never enlist in an
organization predicated on domination, violent aggression,
and wanton death. Women concluded that ecofeminism is
definitely different from feminism, and that there is most
certainly a need to further its development.
Comments in Retrospect:
Wheres
The Spiritual?
By Cathleen and Colleen McGuire, April 1996
Anne Cameron wrote "The feminist movement has long
believed and lived the personal is political, the
political is personal, and now we have learned that the
spiritual is an integral part of both personal and
political." Camerons quote would seemingly have
made a fitting jumping off point in the study group for a
discussion on spirituality. Perhaps more striking is the
short shrift given to Charlene Spretnaks thoughtful
presentation on the subject.
We selected the essays by Cameron and Spretnak
specifically because they both addressed spirituality. And
yet, we ignored that intended theme and ended up writing a
newsletter overwhelmingly political in content. (If we
recall, issues of a spiritual nature may not have even been
brought up in the study group.) How did we pass up such a
perfect occasion to explore the interrelationship between
politics and spirituality, a dynamic so integral to
ecofeminism?
This missed opportunity was probably a barometer of our
own development at the time this seventh session of the study
group met. Our motivation for founding EVE and promoting
ecofeminism was politically inspired. Gradually, however, as
the two of us immersed ourselves in the essence of
ecofeminism, we began to recognize the necessity for a
spiritual dimension to politics. Many activists realize this;
others either do not or choose not to. For us, this
revelation came through our engagement with ecofeminism.
Although baptized as Roman Catholics, we were both
catechism drop-outs by the time we turned eleven. At that
tender age we intrinsically knew that Judeo-Christianity was
not for us. For years we perceived organized religion as
synonymous with spirituality. Throughout our lives we
remained by and large disinterested inand at times even
hostile tothe monotheistic worship of a male,
authoritarian, hierarchical godhead. Our long-standing
agnostic (if not atheistic) outlook is typical in many
leftist circles. While we had initially gravitated to
ecofeminism for its political wisdom, increasingly its
alternative approaches to spirituality, particularly
earth-based spirituality and womens spirituality,
became apparent to us. Within four months after writing the
above newsletter, a growing understanding of the
interconnection between politics and spirituality led
Cathleen to conceive EVEs slogan: For a Spiritual
Politic and a Political Spirituality.
Although we missed the boat on directly addressing the
spiritual in this particular newsletter, we now find it
interesting that we indirectly intuited this element by
zeroing in on Camerons crabby behavior toward a budding
activist. In the newsletter we dealt with her attitude as a
political issue, but in looking back we recognize implicit
spiritual undertones in the groups discussion. The EVE
women faulted Cameron for an "Im right,
youre wrong. I win, you lose" posture. Such
judgmentalism impedes communication, community, and
communion, and undermines an ethic of unconditional love. All
activists (ourselves included) need to learn to critique
without criticizing and engage without judging. Truth be
told, in hindsight we realize that Camerons
judgmentalism was matched by ours of her.
The Dalai Lamas ability to balance the political
with the spiritual is instructive. The Chinese government has
militarily occupied his country since the 1950s, continues to
torture and murder Tibetans, and violates their human rights
by, for example, having destroyed over 2,500 of their
ancient, sacred monasteries, leaving a mere sixteen intact
today. Despite Chinas heinous policies, the Dalai Lama
continues to express a deep love for all Chinese people while
engaging in principled political struggle to free Tibet from
Chinese imperialism.
Another issue relating to spiritual concerns occurs when
political activists talk down to their audience.
Consciousness raisers are tempted to lecture or become
impatient with people whose political beliefs derive from
mere gut opinionoften colored by prime time propaganda.
In an interview, ecofeminist writer and scholar Carol Adams
implied one reason for this tendency by activists when she
stated, "The person with the least amount of information
sets the level of discourse." Perhaps frustration and
impatience can be tempered if activists (ourselves included)
integrated their political approach with spiritual insights
from nature, as the following passage illustrates:
"When we plant a rose seed in the earth, we
notice that it is small, but we do not criticize it as
rootless and stemless. We treat it as a seed,
giving it the water and nourishment required of a seed.
When it first shoots up out of the earth, we dont
condemn it as immature and underdeveloped; nor do we
criticize the buds for not being open when they appear.
We stand in wonder at the process taking place and give
the plant the care it needs at each stage of its
development. The rose is a rose from the time it is a
seed to the time it dies. Within it, at all times, it
contains its whole potential. It seems to be constantly
in the process of change; yet at each state, at each
moment, it is perfectly all right as it is."
(From The Inner Game of Tennis, by
Timothy W. Gallwey, New York: Random House, 1974, p. 29)
Back to Essay Topics