ecofeminism k - michigan7 2014

8/17/2019 Ecofeminism K - Michigan7 2014

1/124

CCHJPV ECOFEM


2/124

1NCThe aff sees nature as an endless supply of resources for them to exploit this

produces a paradi!m of de"elopment that sustains "iolence a!ainst #omen$ thepoor$ and the en"ironmentNhanen!e$ %&&'- M.A. in Development Studies from the University of South Africa (Jytte,February !!", #$cofeminisim% &o'ards nte)ratin) the *oncerns of +omen, oor eople, andature into Development,http%//uir.unisa.ac.0a/bitstream/handle/1!2!!/2"!/dissertation.pdf3se4uence51, Accessed%"/6/17 F89$vidence also sho's that 'omen often bear a )reater environmental burden than men do. Accordin) to :ey0er (1;;2% panded their net'or )lobally to prevent to>ic dumpin) in the &hird +orld as 'ell. &hey no' that corporate CcriminalsC do not reco)ni0e national borders. (e'man 1;;7% 7


3/124

' eapons of mass destruction 'ill be used sooner or later. Different races, ideolo)ies and reli)ious beliefs have al'ays been subEects of conflicts. +ars are therefore liely to increase as lon) as security is perceived as comin)from the barrel of a )un. ($ins 1;;% "9. Accordin) to U@s Safer'orld Foundation to increase security, 'e do not needmore arms, instead 'e need to remove elements that are perceived as threats. +hat really threatens the 'ell-bein)and security of countries, societies and individuals are issues lie economic under-developmentBoverpopulationB environmental de)radationB political oppressionB ethnic and reli)ious rivalriesB

terrorism and crime. &hese are either causin) or contributin) to multiple levels of conflict and violence. An implicit means to achieve peace is for the orth to end their over-consumption of natural resources. &his 'ill freethem from the endless competition for the 'orld@s scarce resources and hence also from acceleratin) conflicts over access to these.&he military proliferation in the orth is needed to secure access to resources. t is not possible for != of the 'orld@s people,includin) the rulin) Southern elite, to )o on tain) 6!= of the 'orld@s 'ealth 'ithout havin) threatenin) arms on a vast scale.

eace in the 'orld conse4uently re4uires a fair distribution of the )lobal 'ealth. t means thatthe overdeveloped orthern countries must shift to a much lo'er per capita resource use rates.

A Eust, peaceful and environmentally sustainable 'orld order depends on ho' soon 'e can shiftfrom the present consumer oriented, economic )ro'th model to a conserver society. From this, itfollo's that real security depends on non-military concerns lie economic 'ell-bein), social Eustice, material sufficiency and

ecolo)ical stability. Moreover, 'e need to tal to)ether. Differences bet'een people and )roups must bediscussed so that each understands the other. +ith compromises and a)reements on common aims, peacefulsolutions to disa)reements can be found. ($ins 1;;% 26-2;, 12?B Go'e 1;;"% t, the desi)n 'ill chan)e over time. t is not somethin) static. +hat are some ofthe boundary conditions of a feminist ethic3 First, nothin) can become part of a feminist ethic---can be part of the4uilt-that promotes se>ism, racism, classism, or any other CismsC of social domination. f course,people may disa)ree about 'hat counts as a se>ist act, racist attitude, classist behavior. +hat counts as se>ism, racism, or classismmay vary cross-culturally. Still, because a feminist ethic aims at eliminatin) se>ism and se>ist bias, and (as have already sho'n9

se>ism is intimately connected in conceptuali0ation and in practice to racism, classism, and naturism, a feminist ethic must be anti-se>ist, anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-naturist and opposed to any CismC 'hich


4/124

presupposes or advances a lo)ic of domination. Second, a feminist ethic is a conte>tualist ethic. A conte>tualist ethic is one 'hich sees ethical discourse and practice as emer)in) from the voices of people located in different historical circumstances. A conte>tualist ethic is properly vie'ed as acolla)e or mosaic, a tapestry of voices that emer)es out of felt e>periences. Hie any colla)e or mosaic, thepoint is not to have one picture based on a unity of voices, but a pattern 'hich emer)es out ofthe very different voices of people located in different circumstances. +hen a conte>tualist ethic

is feminist, it )ives central place to the voices of 'omen. &hird, since a feminist ethic )ivescentral si)nificance to the diversity of 'omen@s voices, a feminist ethic must be structurallypluralistic rather than unitary or reductionistic. t reEects the assumption that there is Cone

voiceC in terms of 'hich ethical values, beliefs, attitudes, and conduct can be assessed. Fourth, afeminist ethic reconceives ethical theory as theory in process 'hich 'ill chan)e over time. Hie alltheory, a feminist ethic is based on some )enerali0ations.7 evertheless, the )enerali0ations associated 'ith it are themselves apattern of voices 'ithin 'hich the different voices emer)in) out of concrete and alternative descriptions of ethical situations have

meanin). &he coherence of a feminist theory so conceived is )iven 'ithin a historical andconceptual conte>t, i.e., 'ithin a set of historical, socioeconomic circumstances (includin) circumstances of race, class, a)e,and affectional orientation9 and 'ithin a set of basic beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions about the 'orld. Fifth, becausea feminist ethic is conte>tualist, structurally pluralistic, and Cin-process,C one 'ay to evaluatethe claims of a feminist ethic is in terms of their inclusiveness% those claims (voices, patterns of voices9are morally and epistemolo)ically favored (preferred, better, less partial, less biased9 'hich are more

inclusive of the felt e>periences and perspectives of oppressed persons. &he condition of inclusivenessre4uires and ensures that the diverse voices of 'omen (as oppressed persons9 'ill be )iven le)itimacy inethical theory buildin). t thereby helps to minimi0e empirical bias, e.)., bias risin) from faulty or false )enerali0ations based on stereotypin), too small a sample si0e, or a se'ed sample. t does so by ensurin) that any )enerali0ations 'hich are made

about ethics and ethical decision main) include-indeed cohere 'ith-the patterned voices of 'omen. 2 Si>th, a feministethic maes no attempt to provide an CobEectiveC point of vie' , since it assumes that in contemporary culturethere really is no such point of vie' . As such, it does not claim to be CunbiasedC in the sense of #value-neutral or CobEective.C :o'ever, it does assume that 'hatever bias it has as an ethiccentrali0in) the voices of oppressed persons is a better bias-CbetterC because it is more inclusiveand therefore less partial-than those 'hich e>clude those voices. ? Seventh, a feminist ethicprovides a central place for values typically unnoticed, underplayed, or misrepresented intraditional ethics, e.)., values of care, love, friendship, and appropriate trust. " A)ain, it need not do

this at the e>clusion of considerations of ri)hts, rules, or utility. &here may be many conte>ts in 'hich tal of ri)hts or of utility is useful or appropriate. For instance, in contracts or property relationships,tal of ri)hts may be useful and appropriate. n decidin) 'hat is cost-effective or advanta)eous to the most people, tal of utility may

be useful and appropriate. n a feminist 4ua conte>tualist ethic, 'hether or not such tal is useful orappropriate depends on the conte>tB other values (e.)., values of care, trust, friendship9 are not vie'ed as reducible toor captured solely in terms of such tal. 6 $i)hth, a feminist ethic also involves a reconception of 'hat it isto be human and 'hat it is for humans to en)a)e in ethical decision main) , since it reEects as eithermeanin)less or currently untenable any )ender-free or )ender-neutral description of humans, ethics, and ethical decision main). tthereby reEects 'hat Alison Ja))ar calls Cabstract individualism,C i.e., the position that it is possible to identify ahuman essence or human nature that e>ists independently of any particular historical conte>t.;:umans and human moral conduct are properly understood essentially (and not merely accidentally9 in terms of net'ors or 'ebs

of historical and concrete relationships. All the props are no' in place for seein) ho' ecofeminism provides the frame'or for adistinctively feminist and environmental ethic. t is a feminism that criti4ues male bias 'herever it occurs in ethics

(includin) environmental ethics9 and aims at providin) an ethic (includin) an environmental ethic9 'hich is notmale biased-and it does so in a 'ay that satisfies the preliminary boundary conditions of a feminist ethic.


5/124

./N0


6/124

./N0 22 3ENE4/C 5T6TE$ M/./T64/M 78EVE.OPMENT9

the 16C:s ;de"elopmentploitation. Any re)ard for the 'ell bein) of humanity is, at best,secondary. For today@s so called democratic )overnments and institutions do not 'or for the

'ell bein) of people and place. &oday@s political leaders have become the handmaidens of not Eustcorporations, or even multinational corporations, but of transnational corporations. *orporations that, by definition, arefrom no place or nation. n *anada, the move to'ard free tradeLthe socalled level playin) field demanded by the transnationalsLissystematically proceedin). ast forests are bein) handed over to Japanese firms to pulp or, in the case of the cotton'ood forests ofnorthern Iritish *olumbia, made into disposable chopstics for the international maret. n Alberta, an area of public land almostthe si0e of 8reat Iritain has been leased to t'elve firms. &'o Japanesecontrolled companies secured leased ri)hts to tracts coverin)

12 percent of the province. Much of this socalled economic development is hu)ely under'ritten by ea)er)overnments dolin) out millions of dollars of ta>payers@ money to ensure the success of theindustryLthe destruction of vast CplacesCLand thus main) the area desirable for thetransnationals. As many learned people have said, if the planet is sic, so are the people. +estern civili0ation@s blindness Ni)noranceOto the sensitive 'eb of relations and differences that constitutes the natural 'orld (and humanind as a part of that9, as seen so clearly by the First eoples and increasin)ly reinforced byscientists, ecolo)ists, radical theolo)ists, and others, cannot continue. At the current rate of e>tinction ofspecies, the ne>t five hundred years of our inhabitation of the planet 'ill 'ipe out alldifferences, different species of flora and fauna, and, if the e' +orld rder taes hold,different cultures and societies of people. s this 'hat 'e 'ant to leave for future )enerations3$cofeminismLA Gesponse to Fear and Alienation Ursula He8uin, in C+omen/+ildernessC from :ealin) the +ounds, encapsulates

the attitude brou)ht from the ld +orld to &urtle sland, an attitude 'hich continues to propel this society% C*ivili0ed Mansays% am Self, am Master, all the rest is otherLoutside, belo', underneath, subservient. o'n, use, e>plore, e>ploit, control. +hat do is 'hat matters. +hat 'ant is 'hat matter is for. am that am, and the rest is 'omen and the 'ilderness, to be used as see fit .C +ith 8od, and his ri)hthand Man, atthe Ccenter of the universeCLconceived of as the hierarchical *hain of Iein)Lthere is no room for anyone or anythin) else in thedriver@s seat. &hus decisions made from this lofty position reflect only himLa lonely and isolated character, dissociated from all therest of life by his o'n selfimportance. &here are al'ays conse4uences to decisionsLsometimes 4uite different in the short term thanin the lon) term. So, in the immediate, man mi)ht )ain po'er and presti)e from e>ploitation of 'omen or natureB in the lon) term 'hat may 'ell be revealed is that he has bitten the hand that feeds him. And this is Eust 'hat is bein) seen today as a )ro'in)

number of people are 'ain) up to the fact that everythin) is connected and that there are profoundconse4uences to human behavior, particularly oppressive and e>ploitative activities 'hichthreaten nature@s natural economy, that delicate balance of relationships that maes life possible. &oday the voices ofmany native and nonnative people are respondin) to the e' +orld rder and the oppression and violence that underlie it.

Amon) the many strands of thou)ht and action helpin) to uncover the lies and half baed truthsof +estern civili0ation is ecofeminism . Susan 8riffin, a leadin) ecofeminist 'riter, peace activist, and poet, insists


7/124

'ith the mi)ht of a passionate pen that 'e stop deludin) ourselves, that 'e stop defendin) this civili0ation that has shaped ourminds and 'hich is no' destroyin) the earth% +e say there is no 'ay to see his dyin) as separate from her livin), or 'hat he haddone to her, or 'hat part of her he had used. +e say if you chan)e the course of this river you chan)e the shape of the 'hole place. And 'e say that 'hat she did then could not be separated from 'hat she held sacred in herself, 'hat she had felt 'hen he did that toher, 'hat 'e hold sacred to ourselves, 'hat 'e feel 'e could not )o on 'ithout, and 'e say if this river leaves this place, nothin) 'ill)ro' and the mountain 'ill crumble a'ay, and 'e say 'hat he did to her could not be separated from the 'ay that he looed at her,and 'hat he felt 'as ri)ht to do to her, and 'hat they do to us, 'e say, shapes ho' they see us. &hat once the trees are cut do'n, the 'ater 'ill 'ash the mountain a'ay and the river be heavy 'ith mud, and there 'ill be a flood. And 'e say that 'hat he did to her he

did to all of us. And that one act cannot be separated from another. And had he seen more clearly, 'e say, he mi)ht have predictedhis o'n death. :o' if the trees )re' on the hillside there 'ould be no flood. And you cannot divert this river. +e say loo ho' the 'ater flo's from this place and returns as rainfall, everythin) returns, 'e say, and one thin) follo's another, there are limits, 'esay, on 'hat can be done and everythin) moves. +e are all part of this motion, 'e say, and the 'ay of the river is sacred, and this)rove of trees is sacred, and 'e ourselves, 'e tell you, are sacred. f only 8riffin@s 'ords could be more 'idely heard and understood,the el, the caribou, the nuit and the *ree, and all the rest of the sacred life of James Iay could be spared.


8/124

./N0 22 8EVE.OPMENT

The 16C:s claims of sustaina*le de"elopment are a lie created *y de"elopers tomaintain the status ,uo(

)ells and )irth -' a)ina +arrior and He)endary Feminist e's Artist and o'a State

rofessor of $colo)y (Ietty and Danielle, $i)hteen Gemediatin) Development throu)h an$cofeminist Hens, *h. 16 $cofeminism % +omen, *ulture, ature, edited by aren J +arren,Ioo9 K/H$A Many of the inconsistencies and ine4uities of international development arise from the 'orld vie' of thedeveloper. &oday@s dominant 'orld vie' accords neither respect nor reciprocity to 'omen, norto the earth. &o cast development in more inclusive terms and processes re4uires that developers sensiti0e their

'orld vie' as they apply their interventions. &o this end, 'e be)in by addressin) three voids in developmentas conventionally practiced% nature, local culture, and 'omen (and other oppressed people9. +e offerecolo)ical feminism as a counterbalance to today@s dominant 'orld vie'. ature% *an &here Ie Gene'alin Development3 &he deterioration of the 'orld@s environment, primarily the result of humanactivities, has been accelerated by development. &he pursuit of development throu)hcolonialism, industriali0ation, and urbani0ation has e>tracted a hu)e cost from the environment.

Unsound a)ricultural practices typify the e>ploitation of natural resources. *onventional +estern a)riculture is imposed on the landin a seemin) effort to control and subdue nature 'ith the monoculture cropLin contrast to inte)rated multicrop, multilevel family

and community farmin) systems 'hich 'or in partnership 'ith the land and natural cycles. &he failure of developmentpro)rams as )uided by the dominant 'orld vie' has led to a revised paradi)m, calledsustainable development. Sustainable development sees a balance bet'een resource use and the satisfaction of humanneeds based on continuin) and rene'able processes, not on the e>ploitation and e>haustion of the principal or the capital of thelivin) resource base (Hoenin), 1;;!9. &he +orld *ommission on the $nvironment and Development (1;6", 7 That this ne# discourse for de"elopment can *e so readily

appropriated into the mainstream "ernacular offers little compellin! hope that it

#ill in practice *e more respectful of nature$ indi!enous cultures$ and #omen and

children(


9/124

./N0 22 E?P.O46T/ON

@nrelentless pursuit of technolo!ical exploration and de"elopment compromisesthe en"ironment and #omen.oer -' *hemical $n)ineer and Feminist Author (Joseph, #$cofeminism in enya% A

*hemical $n)ineer@s erspective, *h. 1?, $cofeminism % +omen, *ulture, ature, edited byaren J +arren, Ioo9 K/H$A K'e donPt endorse the ablest lan)ua)e in this evidenceK Althou)h some of the science and technolo)yrelated issues faced here at home may be more complicated, the problems created byour level of pro)ress and the resultin) impact on the environment may still re4uire that this marria)e (section K9 'or to solve them.

Jac4ues *ousteau (1;619 has 'ritten% Iorn of the le)itimate stru))le for survival, ironically, the pursuit oftechnolo)y and pro)ress may today endan)er the very survival of the human species, as 'ell asthat of practically all life on earth and in the ocean. :o'ever, those 'ho 'ould denouncetechnolo)y and pro)ress alto)ether in an attempt to solve the problem have only a limited

visionB and limited vision is sometimes more dan)erous than Ncomplete i)noranceO blindness. +emust not for)et that the same civili0ation that has clouded our vie' 'ith to>ic smo) has also )iven us the satellite to help us vie' theplanet from hi)h above. &he technolo)y that 'e use to abuse the planet is the same technolo)y that can help us to heal it. (>viii9&echnolo)y@s role in chan)e is to push us alon), to sho' 'hat is possibleLas a stimulus, an illuminator of the path ahead. :o'ever,

technolo)y isn@t ma)ical and doesn@t hold any meanin) or value until it impacts our lives. &heecolo)y movement has raised and debated the issue of science, technolo)y, and society for decades. n C&he Death of atureC*arolyn Merchant (1;;pression of both male and female talent and on the maintenance of environmental inte)rity (?69 6n

ecofeminist position is one that see+s to help us create options for our o#n

pro!ress and de"elopment *y reco!niAin! that the #ay dominators "ie# natureB

as a resource and as inferior morally to human culture and reasonBis

fundamentally connected to$ and indeed caused *y$ the #ay a male dominated

society "ie#s female "alues . $colo)ical feminism fits into this essay 'ith science because it Cis a feminism 'hichattempts to unite the demands of the 'omen@s movement 'ith those of the ecolo)ical movementC (+arren and *heney 1;;1, 1";9. And the ecolo)ical movement isn@t fully valid unless it rests on )ood science. $cofeminism, as one type of feminism, has as a

fundamental tenet the belief that our conceptual 'orld vie's are shaped by our social structure. &hou)h perhaps less e>treme thanin enya, our social structure is also patriarchy, Can oppressive, male)ender privile)ed conceptual frame'or and the sorts of po'er

relations and behaviors it le)itimi0esC (+arren 1;;1, 6" 9( Only if #e percei"e and ac+no#led!e harmful

practices can #e then empo#er oursel"es to positi"e chan!e$ to creation of

alternati"es li+e inte!ration of science and technolo!y #ith our o#n local "oices

to ta+e realistic loo+s at our notions of pro!ress( &hou)h ne' ecolo)ical directions devoid of scientificunderstandin) are limited, perhaps even threatenin), in their narro'mindedness, a lar)er vision is also impossible throu)h a narro' scientific approach. one of us can be so 'ell educated and e>perienced as to have an e>pert@s depth of understandin) of enou)hindividual disciplines to truly see a 'hole picture. +hich maes seein) the connections across disciplines and to our everyday livesL 'hich only the local voice can doLand acno'led)in) them as le)itimate all the more important. :ere the insi)hts of feminists, localpeople, and science become e4ually important (section K9.


10/124

./N0 634/[email protected]@4E

/ndustrialiAed a!riculture ma+es life #orse for #omen2 they:re forced to mo"e toless fertile areas to lea"e the *est places for men:s ;cash crops=

Nhanen!e$ %&&'- M.A. in Development Studies from the University of South Africa (Jytte,February !!", #$cofeminisim% &o'ards nte)ratin) the *oncerns of +omen, oor eople, andature into Development,http%//uir.unisa.ac.0a/bitstream/handle/1!2!!/2"!/dissertation.pdf3se4uence51, Accessed%"/6/17 F89verall &hird +orld 'omen are oppressed both by family systems and by national andinternational inEustice. +omen hold only 1!= of parliamentary seats, merely ?= of cabinetpositions and a minor 1= of the chief e>ecutive positions 'orld'ide. Gural development even

'orsened 'omen@s situation. Iy introduction of modern a!riculture , 'ith the aim to increase

economic )ro'th, it increased #omenDs #or+load and dependency status( +hen there is

possibility to earn money in a)riculture men often tae over the most fertile land. &he result is

that 'omen lose control over land for food production. +omen are )enerally also e>cluded fromaccess to ne' technolo)y, capital and trainin). &hese inputs are directed to men@s cash crops. *ash crops are normally non-food products for e>port lie tobacco or animal fodder. &hus, priority for cash crops meansscarcity of sufficient food for the household as 'ell as national food insecurity. As a result, the 'holefamily suffers ne)ative health conse4uences. :ence, rural development has not, in Momsen@s opinion, brou)ht alon) any une4uivocally positive chan)es for rural 'omen. &his picture is similar for urban industrialdevelopment. Accordin) to Madhu Ihushan, there is a pervasive mar)inalisation of female employmentin the process of industrialisation% +omen are prevented from enterin) attractive EobsB their

'or is concentrated in the informal and lo'est paid sectorsB a 'omen@s Eob automatically )ivesa lo' statusB 'omen endure lo' payment and poor 'orin) conditionsB and they lac Eob

security and frin)e benefits ( The unfair distri*ution of resources$ po#er and

responsi*ilities are traditionalised and socialised into #omen$ they are enshrined

in la#s and enforced$ if necessary *y male "iolence( Ihushan therefore concludes that the trendsCmodernisationC and Cpro)ressC have brou)ht alon) increasin)ly mae 'omen victims of ne' forms of direct and structural violence.

(elly 1;;!% 11?B $ins 1;;% "7-"2B :ey0er 1;;2% -


11/124

http%//'''.uvm.edu/rsenr/nr?/Geadin)s/+arrenecofeminismarticle.pdf 9//schnall

+M$, FD, AD FAGM8 t is estimated that #omen farmers !ro# at least half of the #orldDs

food( Accordin) to Mayra Iuvinic and Sally Tudelman, bet'een one-third and one-half of the a)ricultural laborers in the &hird

+orld are 'omen. &hey claim that% As a rule, 'omen farmers 'or lon)er hours, have fe'er assets and

lo'er incomes than men farmers do, and have almost as many dependents to support. &he disparity is not due to lac of education or competence. +omen farmers are poorer because their access to credit islimited. +ithout credit they cannot ac4uire productive assets, such as cattle, fertili0er orimproved seeds, to improve the productivity of their labor. +omen@s share in farmin) varies 'idely cross-culturally, but in )eneral men do more of the actual field'or 'hen access to machinery or lar)e farmanimals is involved (such as in the United States or ndia9, and 'omen do more 'hen the 'or is done byhand (such as in Ama0onia and sub-Saharan Africa9. +omen in Africa produce more than "! percent of

Africa@s food, typically 'ithout tractors, o>en, or even plo's. C+hen one speas today of @the African farmer,@ one is talin)about a 'oman. &he U)andan poet ot p@Iite poi)nantly e>presses this vie' in his CSon) of col.C +oman of Africa S'eeperSmearin) floors and 'alls +ith co' dun) and blac soil *oo, ayah, the baby on your bac +asher of dishes, lantin), 'eedin),harvestin) Store-eeper, builder Gunner of errands, *art, lorry, doney... +oman of Africa +hat are you not3 &o illustrate the pli)ht

of 'omen farmers in Africa, consider the root crop cassava. +omen do "! to 6! percent of the )ro'in) andharvestin) of cassava, and 1!! percent of the processin), 'hich includes 'ashin) out the natural

cyanide found in it (a process that taes ei)hteen five-hour days9. Tet little money has beendevoted to research on cassava and the development of processin) technolo)ies that 'ouldincrease both the productivity of 'omen farmers and the demand and price for cassava. &he so-called femini0ation of a)riculture refers to the increasin) proportion of 'omen in the a)riculturallabor force. +omen are farm o'ners and farm mana)ers, 'ith maEor decision-main) responsibilities about production andmost a)ricultural tass. +omen are farm partners, sharin) responsibility for a)ricultural production, typically 'ith another

household member. +omen are farm 'orers, either as unpaid family laborers or as 'a)e laborers. &he number of 'omenfor each 1!! men 'orin) in a)riculture is seventy-one in Africa, fifty-four in +estern $urope,forty-seven in Asia and the acific, and ei)hty-four in $astern $urope. :o'ever, a failure toreali0e the e>tent of 'omen@s contribution to a)riculture (e.)., by First +orld development policies and

practices9 has contributed historically to the in"isi*ility of #omen in all aspects of a)ricultural

'or % in plou)hin), plantin), carin) for farm animals, harvestin), 'eedin), processin), and the storin) of crops. t also has

contributed to a failure to see 'ays in 'hich 'omen and their families have been deeply affected by development decisions and proEects that have depleted the resource bases on 'hich theirproductive activities depend (e.)., subsistence a)riculture, food processin)9. &his is e>acerbated by the factthat 'omen historically have often had little input into those decisions and proEects. *hris *uomoar)ues that farms are sites of human oppression in the United States as 'ell% $i)hty to ninetypercent of the appro>imately t'o million hired farm'orers are Hatino , follo'ed by African-Americans,*aribbeans, uerto Gicans, Filipinos, ietnamese, oreans, and Jamaicans. t is estimated that as many as


12/124

./N0 6@[email protected]@4E

The aff coloniAes the ocean for its o#n commercial exploitation and !ain( The affre!enerates fish stoc+s out of a desire for more resource extraction(Nhanen!e ' nternational Development *onsultant, ndependent Gesearcher (Jytte,

$cofeminism% &o'ards nte)ratin) the *oncerns of +omen, oor, eople and atureinto Development, February !!", p)


13/124

removed from the development and distribution of biotechnolo)y. &he overridin) motivation for)enetic en)ineerin) is not the advancement of science, the curin) of diseases, or the feedin) ofthe hun)ry% it is the desire to secure unprecedented financial )ains. (*apia !!% 17!9.

&he biotechnolo)y advertisements portray a brave ne' 'orld in 'hich nature 'ill be brou)htunder control. ts plants 'ill be )enetically en)ineered commodities, tailored to consumersP

needs. e' crop varieties 'ill be drou)ht tolerant and resistant to insects and 'eeds. A)ricuhure 'ill no lon)er be dependent on chemicals, thus there 'ill be no more dama)e to theenvironment. Food 'ill be better and safer than ever before and 'orld hun)er 'ill disappear.Similar lan)ua)e 'as used 'hen the 8reen Gevolution 'as promoted. Since that time the darside of chemical a)riculture has become painfully evident. (*apia !!% 1?ample soya beans, en)ineered by Monsanto, 'asdeveloped to re4uire the companyPs herbicide to )ro'. &his 'ill increase the sales and use of

that specific chemical product. :ence the shift from an ecolo)ical process of productiverene'ability to a technolo)ical process of non-rene'ability production has reduced biolo)icaldiversity in a)riculture, it has increased farmerPs dependency on e>pensive patented products,and it has created poverty and non-sustainability in a)riculture. Iut it has )enerated 'ealth tothe corporations. (Shiva 1;;7b% cept in Africa, durin) the past 2! years. Gesearch also sho's that there isno direct relationship bet'een the prevalence of hun)er and a countryPs population si0e.Moreover a 1;;"-study found that "6= of all malnourished children under five years in theSouth live in countries 'ith food surpluses. Many of these countries e>port more a)ricultural)oods than they import. &he root causes of hun)er are conse4uently unrelated to foodproduction. Famine is caused by poverty, ine4uality and lac of access to food and land. eople)o hun)ry because the means to produce and distribute food are controlled by the rich and


14/124

po'erful. &hus 'orld hun)er is not a technical but a political problem. f 'e do not address theroot causes, hun)er 'ill persist no matter 'hich technolo)ies 'e apply. (*apra !!% 1?7-1?29.periments sho' that )enetically modified (8M9 seeds do not increase crop yieldssi)nificantly. 8M seeds may even a))ravate hun)er. oor farmers 'ill not be able to buy the

e>pensive seeds and their implements, neither 'ill they be allo'ed to store and trade seed. &huspoor farmers 'ill become dependent and those 'ho cannot pay 'ill be mar)inali0ed. n this 'ay 8M seeds are creatin) the classical preconditions for hun)er and famine. 'nership ofresources concentrated in a fe' hands and food supply based on too fe' varieties of crops arethe 'orst options for food security. (*apra !!% 1?29.


15/124

./N0 22 ECON

the modern o*s system the aff stri"es to maintain perpetuates !ender$ class andrace ine,uality and ecocideessions -' Author of ositive Freedom and Autonomy (Gobert, #$cofeminism and +or,

*h. 1!, $cofeminism % +omen, *ulture, ature, edited by aren J +arren, Ioo9 K/H$A

Seen throu)h the eyes of 'omen, minorities, and social classes, our Eobs system 'asdysfunctional from the be)innin). For at the heart of the belief system that underlies andrationali0es this system is precisely 'hat +arren sees as constitutive of patriarchy as adysfunctional system% hierarchical thinin) and the lo)ic of dominataion. From the outset, 'omen,people of color, and poor people have been disenfranchised from economic, social, and political po'er, as can

be seen in the theoretical rationali0ations of the system found in classical 'ors such as Hoce@s Second &reatise, Smith@s ma)num opus, or the still-

popular Social Dar'inism, or if one loos at the realities of modern industrial societies. Seen throu)h the lens of ecofeminism, our Eobs system and the lar)er economic ideolo)ical social cultural system of 'hich it is a part arepatriarchal. Accordin) to +arren (1;;!9, this patriarchy has five interrelated features% (19 alue hierarchical (CUp -Do'nC9 thinin), 'hich places hi)her value, status, or presti)e on 'hat is CUpC (men9 or 'hat is )enderidentified 'ith

'hat is CUpC ... than 'ith 'hat is CDo'nC ('omen9 or 'hat is )enderidentified 'ith 'hat is @@Do'n.C . (9 alue dualisms... 'hich or)ani0e reality into

oppositional (rather than complementary9 and e>clusive (rather than inclusive9 pairs. . . (ploitations of

'omen and nonhuman natureC (1amples to sho' not only the lined domination of 'omen and nature, but also that liberatin) 'omen 'ould enhanceenvironmental relations and health. robably the 4uicest 'ay to sho' a final central feature of our dysfunctional Eobs system is to return to ourfarmin) e>ample. +e said that one of the central tra)ic ironies of contemporary farm life is that farmers in si)nificant 'ays no'in)ly participate in thedestruction of their 'ays of life and that this irony results from their seemin)ly unavoidable participation in the a)ribusiness model. &o have a Eobfarmin), they seem to have to CchooseC environmental destruction as a CnaturalC course of events. &o'n and city d'ellers are cau)ht in the same trap%the 'ays of life 'e have Cchosen,@@ 'rapped as they are around our Eobs system, predictably 'ill also destroy the cultural and natural )rounds upon

'hich they are built. +e cannot continue this 'ay. Iut to su))est that 'e consume less threatens peopleat a most vulnerable point% already in a mobile and rapidly chan)in) society 'here traditional

supports such as reli)ion, a stable social and economic order, family continuity, and the lie aredisappearin) or )one, to su))est that people )ive up on our Eobs system and its concomitantconsumerism is very threatenin). *learly such su))estions must be accompanied by viable alternatives, and it is to this more positive

vision that 'e no' turn.

Their pursuit of o*s at the cost of the en"ironment harms #omen and destroys theecosystemsessions -' Author of ositive Freedom and Autonomy (Gobert, #$cofeminism and +or,*h. 1!, $cofeminism % +omen, *ulture, ature, edited by aren J +arren, Ioo9 K/H$A $nvironmentalists, 'hile )ro'in) in numbers, are a rather 'ea voice in this conflict. n America no politician could rise to national

prominence 'ho advocated reducin) Eobs or a no)ro'th economy in order to preserve or recreate a healthy environment. urdominant economic paradi)m is one 'here )ro'th (C'ithin certain limits,C it is said9 is an automatic)ood and development is the main fuel that stoes the fires of this )ro'th. For most people the

practical bottom line is Eobs% developers tae the ra' materials of the earth, be it minerals or air,land or ideas, and turn them into Eobs. n this valueadded process, throu)h human labor somethin) oflesser value is turned into a product (or used to produce a product9 of )reater value. n the superchar)ed and too oftenunanaly0ed system of values built into our economic reconin), the revered bottom line dominates% thin)s are valued for their

contribution to the economy. From 'ithin this system 'e tend to thin of economic values such as costsand benefits, profits and efficiency, instead of environmental values such as biodiversity, ecosystemichealth, homeostasis or the inherent 'orth of natural bein)s. &hus even 'hen the CenvironmentC in somesense 'ins, environmentalists find themselves in the a''ard position of bein) perceived asa)ainst development and Eobs, and hence perceived as bein) a)ainst the 'ellbein) of 'orers and their families. &he


16/124

conceptual frame'or of Eobs versus the environment is so 'idely used and is such a po'erfulideolo)ical tool that clearheadedness about the issues involved is precluded and practical solutions that do more than create anuneasy truce or Cpra)matic compromiseC are as rare as members of an endan)ered species. $ven most environmentally consciouspeople, 'ho reali0e that industrial economies are the maEor source of environmental de)radation in the modern 'orld, still feel the

pull of Eobs a)ainst the environmentB and althou)h increasin) numbers of people see that e>cesses such asconsumerism, mindless technolo)ical use, and vie'in) )ro'th economics as an automatic )oodmust be ended if environmental health is to be preserved , fe' are able to e>tract themselves from the force ofthis frame'or of choice. believe the reason this dualism is so po'erful is that the peculiar Eobs system found in the United Statesand other industriali0ed nations, and the economic and social systems of 'hich it is a part, are the loci of many of the central valuesand conceptual frame'ors of our culture. +ithout satisfactory conceptual and practical resolutions of the Eobs/environmentconflict, the outloo for convivial communities that include healthy natural environments is dim. Jobs versus the $nvironment% A

False Dichotomy... and Dan)erous Iesides ractically, our environmental destructiveness is absurd. n thepursuit of the )ood life our 'ay of livin) and 'orin) destroys the very basis of the )ood life 'esee.< For e>ample, in o'a, 'here live, farmers for a century have been Cminin)C the soil in such a 'ay that the C)oldC (topsoil9literally has been 'ashed to the sea. &he tall )rass prairie that covered o'a for eons laid up t'o to si> feet of rich topsoil, and inmost places that le)acy has been reduced to a fe' inches (in some areas only subsoil remains9. o'a farmers have al'ays careddeeply about themselves, their families, and their offsprin), and about the land that supports their lives. Tet they have become a partof a 'ay of 'orin) that re4uires them to destroy the C)round of their bein),C the soil that sustains their livelihood and their lives.o'a farms, lie farms every'here in industriali0ed societies, have, as Mar> predicted nearly a century and a half a)o, becomeindustriali0ed. +endell Ierry calls this )reat transformation in farm culture the chan)e from a)riculture to a)ribusiness,7 anda)ribusiness has the farm version of 'hat call the modern Eobs system. My o'a illustration can help us see further dimensions ofthe practical and conceptual issues that underlie the Eobs/environment conflict. &he farmin) practices of o'a farmers, especially

since the rise of chemical farmin) after the Second +orld +ar, have sullied the 'aters farmers, their families, and their livestocdrin (and, of course, drinin) 'ater for nonfarmers has been poisoned as 'ell9. Many farmers 2 and their helpers and families have

become ill from bein) near these Cnecessary in)redientsC in this 'ay of farmin). Furthermore, in rural America, as in&hird +orld countries every'here,? 'omen (and children9, especially poor 'omen and 'omenof color, are harmed disproportionately to the rest of the population. &hus, as shall ar)ue in the ne>tsection, a)ricultural practices are feminist issues.

Valuin! the economy a*o"e all else fails to address the fla#ed lo!ic ofo"erconsumptionessions -' Author of ositive Freedom and Autonomy (Gobert, #$cofeminism and +or,*h. 1!, $cofeminism % +omen, *ulture, ature, edited by aren J +arren, Ioo9 K/H$A A second point that this e>ample illustrates is that the modern Eobs system, 'hich pits Eobs a)ainst the

environment, is a recent invention. ther people at other times, and farmers 'ithin and outside of Americana)ribusiness today, have made their livin)s in 'ays that did not )enerate the de)ree of alienationfrom people and land, nor the environmental de)radation, that our modern a)ricultural Eobs system tends toproduce. Furthermore, the fact that this system is an invention, ho'ever intractable it mi)ht seem at the moment, can)ive us real hope% 'e could, if properly or)ani0ed and clearheaded, create a different system. Iefore turnin) tothe tas of attemptin) to describe an environmentally and socially more satisfactory 'or system, believe 'e 'ill be bettere4uipped to do so if 'e can comprehend ho' bi0arre our modern Eobs system actually is. &he Modern Jobs System%

$nvironmentally, Socially, and $conomically Dysfunctional aren J. +arren (1;;!9 describes patriarchy as adysfunctional system% n a functional system, the rules and roles tend to be clear, respectful, ne)otiableB they can be revised,ne)otiated, chan)ed. roblems tend to be openly acno'led)ed and resolved. n a dysfunctional system, the rules tend to beconfused and covert, ri)id and unchan)in). A hi)h value tends to be placed on controlB dysfunctional systems tend to display ane>a))erated rationality and focus on rule)overned reason.... Dysfunctional systems are often maintained throu)h systematicdenial ... WandX this denial need not be conscious, intentional, or malicious... furthermore, dysfunctional social systems often leavetheir members feelin) po'erless or helpless to mae any si)nificant chan)es. (129 'ould add that a dysfunctional system ismared by its inability to meet the real needs of those 'hom it is meant to serveLit is an inherently fla'ed system. +arren alludesto this striin) feature (striin) because even thou)h a dysfunctional system fails over and over to deliver 'hat it promises, people

eep the system9 'hen she says, C +hen patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this@unmana)eability@ Wpatriarchy cannot @mana)e its affairs e4uitably and Eustly@X can be seen for 'hat it isLapredictable conse4uence of patriarchy C (1;9. As a first attempt to comprehend the dysfunctionality of our Eobssystem, consider 'hat Andre 8or0 calls Ccompensatory consumptionC (chap. 19. $ach of us has practicedcompensatory consumption. Some of us compensate for the pain of a conflict by eatin) some CsinfulCfood or drinin) a soothin) bevera)e. thers )o shoppin) and compensate for a loss or some sufferin) 'ith an item ofclothin), a ne' record, or an automobile. ot all of our compensatory behavior is undesirable, of course, and by no means are 'eal'ays compensatin) for 'hat happens (or does not happen9 on our Eobs. evertheless, accordin) to 8or0, a )reat deal of 'hat


17/124

people today compensate for is 'or related, 'hether from stress or lac of meanin) on the Eob or from other problematic

dimensions of their lives that are related to 'or. Furthermore, since much compensatory behavior is consumptiveand therefore usually costs money, the amount of 'or 'e must do increases as 'e en)a)e infurther compensatory consumption. &he circle of 'or and consumption comes full around and speeds up 'ith everyturn. Add to this psycholo)ic of 'or and compensatory consumption the hu)e motivational machinery of modern public relations,16 'hich from the perspective of dysfunctionality plays the dual roles of the enabler and the tempter, and 'e have a po'erful trap. f

modern 'orers 'ant to participate in the )oods of their society and culture, they must do 'or

that is to a )reat measure inherently unsatisfyin) of their real needs, and advertisin) tells them 'hat they should 'ant to meet those needs, even thou)h 'hat they thus come to 'ant cannot doso. t seems that on the one hand advertisers do not 'ant people actually to be satisfiedB rather, they 'ant people continually tohave the insatiable desires of the modern economic myth and to buy their products. Iut on the other hand, it is crucial thatcompensatory consumers feel their 'ants are their o'n. :o' else could people believe they 'ere CfreeC 'hen they 'ere actin) lieaddicts in a dysfunctional system3 (n her discussion of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system, +arren focuses on ho' such a set of beliefs is crucial for the overall system to operate.9 &hus 'ithout this enablin) belief structure (Cconsumin) frees me to e>press and

create myselfC9, people mi)ht be)in to see ho' contrary to their real needs compensatory consumption really is. Althou)h bothmen and 'omen in America practice compensatory consumption, not surprisin)ly 'omen are thechief tar)ets of advertisers. &his happens, believe, both because 'omen have been )iven thesupport roleLthey are assi)ned to play Cbac upC (llich calls this Cshado' 'orC9Land because 'omen@s e>clusionsfrom male sources of meanin) and po'er have left them especially vulnerable to compensatoryconsumption. As a result of their supportive and secondary roles in this system, 'omen not only buy most of the )oods needed

for runnin) the household, but also are the main consumers of diets, plastic sur)ery, cosmetics, and other forms of personal feel- better consumption. A second 'ay to probe the dysfunctionality of our Eobs system is to loo at 'hat leisure has become for us. n anessay in this volume (chapter ;9, aren Fo> sho's that the conception and practice of leisure can reveal a )reat deal about a culture@s 'or. n our patriarchal Eobs system, 'or that is typically done by 'omen as supporters of men commonly is not vie'ed as real(paid9 'or at all but as C'omen@sC (unpaid9 'or, thus )ivin) men CfreedomC from 'or called leisure, but leavin) 'omen@s 'orand leisure in the shado's of unclarity. Heisure 'ithin this patriarchal system becomes a form of he)emony% since only men 'or,then only men need leisure because 'omen never really 'or (and thus have to C'orC 'hile men are at leisure9. n certain respectsthis chan)es 'hen 'omen Eoin the Eobsforpay part of our Eobs system, but 'omen often clearly are damned if they do 'or on payin) Eobs as 'ell as if they do not% 'orin) 'omen continue to do most of the shado' 'or (all the 'or needed to run a household andto eep the family@s 'orers on the Eob9 after their Eobs are done, and often they still feel as if they are sli)htin) the children (childcare is @@'omen@s 'or,C after all9. &his system is not only dysfunctional for 'omen, ho'everB men, too, suffer from lac of realleisure. Fo> ar)ues that real leisure should not be defined and valued in terms of CfreedomC from 'orin)B instead 'e should defineit and )au)e its 'orth in terms of carin) relationships, play, and meanin) (includin) selfe>pression9. Many students of contemporary culture have noted that for alltoomany men as 'ell as 'omen, our leisure is more lie puttin) salve on 'ounds than it is lie play. 1;Judith Mc8a' contends, in an article on the social history of modern 'or, that even thou)h the modern Eobs system is friendlier inmany 'ays to men than to 'omen, men also are 'ounded and stunted by it. Mc8a' believes that a maEor feature of industriali0ation 'as to chan)e the )eo)raphy of 'or from a situation 'here men and 'omen both 'ere Chousebound,C 'here they 'ored to)ether

in a home economics, to 'or done in Cseparate spheresC (men at the factory and 'omen at home9. She continues by sayin) thateven thou)h men@s 'or done in their separate sphere 'as propped up by 'a)es, relative to 'orin) at home, men suffered )reatloss% they lost the fle>ibility, interest, diversity, and craftsmanship of home 'or, and they )ained industrial byproducts such as boredom, alienation, and lac of opportunity to sociali0e and develop themselves. At the same time 'omen, in their Cinferior sphereC('hich it 'asLand isLin terms of status, pay, respect, etc.9, 'ored in hi)hly relational 'ays on diverse tass re4uirin) advancedsills, and thus their personal and social stren)ths persisted 'hile men@s 'ere 'eaened. Mc8a' maes the same point as +arrenconcernin) the contribution indi)enous 'omen could mae if taen seriously instead of bein) dominated% if men (and 'omen9 couldlearn from 'hat 'omen still remember about 'orin), communities, and nature, 'e 'ould have the basis for much healthiercommunities (includin) nonhuman nature9. And if Fo> is correct that leisure should be based on carin) relationships rather than onconsumption and separation (CfreedomC9, 'omen have a )reat deal to teach men about leisure. Fo>@s )reatest challen)e, thou)h, is tothe 'or/leisure dichotomy itself. She points out that in many societies 'or and leisure 'ere/are not separate. Ioth play time and 'or time 'ere spent in social and playful 'ays, ! thus cuttin) throu)h our dichotomy of 'or and leisure. 'ill return to this

su))estive point in the final section of this essay. A third 'ay to see the dysfunctionality of our Eobs system isto thin of ho' it distributes 'ealth. Adam Smith, surely a main architect of our current economic 'orld, 'as a moralphilosopher 'ho, contrary to many advocates and opponents of capitalism, held no fancy for entrepreneurs. :e )ranted mostlyunlimited accumulation of 'ealth to capitalists in order that the poor be made better offB for Smith, the only virtue of unbridled

material selfishness 'as as a means to the end of material betterment for ordinary people. Smith and the system he helped create)ave a ind of promissory note% if you 'ill be 'illin) to put up 'ith the hardships of 'or 'ithinindustrial society, you 'ill receive a substantial (and increasin)391 share of the 'ealth. For a short 'hile in the United States and other industriali0ed societies, Smith@s system seemed to 'or% access to )oodpayin) Eobs 'as fairlyeasy for CmostC 'orers (e>cept, of course, 'omen, people of color, the handicapped, etc.9 durin) several decades of this century. Iut 'ith the onset of automation and the internationali0ation of the economy, the system@s payoff on this promissory note 'as short

lived. &oday fe'er and fe'er people in American and other industriali0ed societies have access,throu)h Eobs, to the ever )ro'in) 'ealth produced. &hus at the heart of this system is an increasin)ly bi0arre andunacceptable (even to Smith39 result% the central end to'ard 'hich this system is a means is not bein) served. Seen throu)h thislens, if Smith@s Eobs system 'as not dysfunctional from the outset, it has become dysfunctional even for 'hite men. &he chief 'ayapolo)ists for this system rationali0e this fatal diver)ence from Smith@s putative )oal of improvin) Cmanind@sC lot is to chan)e the


18/124

)oal% no' 'hat counts simply is the everincreasin) )eneration of 'ealth. Does the fact that the modern Eobs systemis failin) to meet the needs of its 'orers mean either that people lac the initiative andin)enuity to mae thin)s or that 'e are runnin) out of 'or to be done3 n the contrary, anyone 'ho ishalf a'ae can see that 'e have tremendous 'or to be done (both in terms of importance and sheer volume9 and that in everyindustrial society there are countless people ready and able to do that 'or. ot only is there the obvious infrastructure 'or ofrepairin) and rebuildin) roads, brid)es, 'ater'ors, and the lie, but there is incalculable 'or needed to repair our natural andsocial environments% to rebuild our biotic and social communities, to raise our children 'ell, etc. &he problem is that this 'or falls

outside the Eobs systemB it is not re'arded by those 'ho control the 'ealth. uttin) the issue in these terms sho's finally 'hat ailsour 'ay of 'orin)% 'e face a po'erful crisis of values. A society as vastly 'ealthy as the United States that cannot mana)e to seethat its children are safe, healthy, and 'elleducated and cannot provide its people 'ith the basic amenities and securities of life haseither an impoverished set of values, a sorry lac of ima)ination, or both.


19/124

./N0 [email protected] )E6PON

Nuclear #eapons are fa"ored to demonstrate men:s domination o"er each otherand o"er nature(

Cohn G' foundin) director of the *onsortium on 8ender, Security and :uman Gi)hts (*arol,#Se> and Death in the Gational +orld of Defense ntellectuals, Si)ns, ol. 1, o. 7, +ithinand +ithout% +omen, 8ender, and &heory (Summer, 1;6"9, pp. ?6"-"16. JS&G9 K/H$A n li)ht of the ima)ery of male birth, the e>traordinary names )iven to the bombs that reduced :iroshima and a)asai to ash and

rubble- CHittle IoyC and CFat ManC-at last become intelli)ible. &hese ultimate destroyers 'ere the pro)eny of theatomic scientists-and emphatically not Eust any pro)eny but male pro)eny . n early tests, before they

'ere certain that the bombs 'ould 'or, the scientists e>pressed their concern by sayin) that they hopedthe baby 'as a boy, not a )irl-that is, not a dud.; 8eneral 8rove@s triumphant cable to Secretary of +ar :enryStim- son at the otsdam conference, informin) him that the first atomic bomb test 'as successful read, after decodin)% CDoctor has Eust returned most enthusiastic and confidenthat the little boy is as husy as his bi) brother. &he li)ht in his eyes discernible fromhere to :i)hhold and could have heard his screams from here to my farm.C

&he nuclear scientists )ave birth to male pro)eny 'ith the ultimate po'er of violent dominationover female a- ture. &he defense intellectuals@ proEect is the creation of abstract formula- tionsto control the forces the scientists created-and to participate thereby in their 'orld-

creatin)/destroyin) po'er. The entire history of the *om* proect$ in fact$ seems

permeated #ith ima!ery that confounds manDs o"er#helmin! technolo!ical

po#er to de2 stroy nature #ith the po#er to create2ima!ery that in"erts menDs

destruc2 tion and asserts in its place the po#er to create ne# life and a ne# #orld(

/t con"erts menDs destruction into their re*irth . +illiam H. Haurence 'itnessed the &rinity test of thefirst atomic bomb and 'rote% C&he bi) boom came about a hundred seconds after the )reat flash-the first cry of a ne'-born 'orld....&hey clapped their hands as they leaped from the )round-earthbound man symbolisin) the birth of a ne' force. C


20/124

o. 1!7 destructive po'er seems distinctive, and to best 'arrant the description #'eapons of mass destruction. :o'ever, as 'elearned in the course of our research, many elements of the anti- 'ar feminist criti4ue of nuclear 'eapons hold for chemical and

biolo)ical 'eapons as 'ell. Gather than seein) acceptance of nuclear 'eapons as a #realisticacno'led)ment of the #technolo)ically inevitable, anti-'ar feminists have seen the politicaland intellectual acceptance of nuclear 'eaponsP deployment as somethin) to be e>plained. Some

feminists have noted the allure of nuclear #eapons , particularly the e>citement and a'e

evoed by actual or ima)ined nuclear e>plosions. Some have seen the appeal of explodin!or launchin! nuclear #eapons as reflectin! and reinforcin! masculine desires and

identities( Several anti-'ar feminists have focused less on the 'eapons themselves, and more on the discourse throu)h

'hich the 'eapons (and their use9 are theori0ed and le)itimated. They ha"e #ritten a*out *oth the sexual

and domestic metaphors that turn the mind:s eye to#ard the pleasant and

familiar$ rather than to#ard ima!es of indescri*a*le de"astation( &hey have identified in

nuclear discourse techni4ues of denial and conceptual fra)mentation. &hey have emphasi0ed the 'ays that the a*straction

and euphemism of nuclear discourse protect nuclear planners and politicians

from the !risly realities *ehind their #ords( Speain) )enerally, anti- 'ar feminists

invite 'omen and men to attend to the identities, emotions and discourses that allo' us toaccept the possible use of nuclear 'eapons.< erhaps the most )eneral feminist concern is the 'illin)ness ofintellectuals to tal-as- usual about nuclear 'eapons (or about any atrocity9. And this brin)s us bac to the issue of the framin) ofYuestion &'o. &he 4uestion as it is posed seems in some 'ays similar to the abstract, distancin) thinin) that 'e have critici0ed but in 'hich 'e also participate. &here is no mention of the horror, let alone a pause to rest 'ith it. +e move, or are moved, 4uiclyto an abstract moral tone% #any circumstances #mi)ht be morally permissible.... and then to comparisons. Abstract lan)ua)e and apenchant for distinctions are typical of philosophy, intrinsically unobEectionable, often a pleasure. t is continuous abstraction 'hile

speain) of actual or ima)ined horror that disturbs us. Abstract discussion of 'arfare is both the tool and theprivile)e of those 'ho ima)ine themselves as the (potential9 users of 'eapons. &he victims, ifthey can spea at all, spea 4uite differently% An account of a nuclear blastPs effects by a US defense intellectual%WTou have to have 'ays to maintain communications in aX nuclear environment, a situation bound to include $M blacout, bruteforce dama)e to systems, a heavy Eammin) environment, and so on. 7 An account by a :iroshima survivor% 1< *arol *ohn andSarah Guddic +orin) aper o. 1!7 $verythin) 'as blac, had vanished into the blac dust, 'as destroyed. nly the flames that 'ere be)innin) to lic their 'ay up had any color. From the dust that 'as lie a fo), fi)ures be)an to loom up, blac, hairless,faceless. &hey screamed 'ith voices that 'ere no lon)er human. &heir screams dro'ned out the )roans risin) every'here from the

rubble, )roans that seemed to rise from the very earth itself. 2 t should become apparent then, that our concern about abstractlan)ua)e is not only relevant to the framin) of Yuestion &'o, but to its content the Eustifiability of nuclear 'eaponsP use as 'ell.

t is easier to contemplate and #Eustify the use of nuclear 'eapons in the abstract lan)ua)e ofdefense intellectuals than in the descriptive, emotionally resonant lan)ua)e of the victimB fromthe perspective of the user rather than the victim . Anti- 'ar feminists note that detailed, focal attention tothe human impact of 'eaponsP use is not only considered out of bounds in security professionalsP discourseB it is alsodele)itimated by its association 'ith the #feminine, 'ith insufficient masculinity , as is evident in thise>cerpt of an intervie' 'ith a physicist% #Several collea)ues and 'ere 'orin) on modelin) counterforce nuclear attacs, tryin) to)et realistic estimates of the number of immediate fatalities that 'ould result from different deployments. At one point, 'e re-modeled a particular attac, usin) sli)htly different assumptions, and found that instead of there bein)


21/124

#Se> and Death in the Gational +orld of Defense ntellectuals, Si)ns, ol. 1, o. 7, +ithinand +ithout% +omen, 8ender, and &heory (Summer, 1;6"9, pp. ?6"-"16. JS&G9 K/H$A

+hite men in ties discussin) missile si0e Feminists have often su))ested that an important aspect of thearms race is phallic 'orship, that Cmissile envyC is a si)nificant motivatin) force in the nuclear

build-up.1 have al'ays found this an uncomfortably reductionist e>planation and hoped that my research at the *enter 'ould

yield a more comple> analysis. Iut still, 'as curious about the e>tent to 'hich mi)ht find a se>ual subte>t in the defenseprofessionals@ discourse. 'as not prepared for 'hat found. ?; thin had naively ima)ined myself as a feminist spy in thehouse of death-that 'ould need to snea around and eavesdrop on 'hat men said in un)uarded moments, usin) all my subtlety

and cunnin) to unearth 'hatever se>ual ima)ery mi)ht be underneath ho' they thou)ht and spoe. had naively believedthat these men, at least in public, 'ould appear to be a'are of feminist criti4ues . f they had notchan)ed their lan)ua)e, thou)ht that at least at some point in a lon) tal about Cpenetra- tion aids,C someone 'ould suddenly looup, sli)htly embarrassed to be cau)ht in such blatant confirmation of feminist analyses of +hat@s 8oin) n :ere.@< f course, 'as 'ron). &here 'as no evidence that any feminist criti4ues had ever reached the ears, much less the minds, of these men.

American military dependence on nuclear 'eapons 'as e>plained as Cirresistible, because you)et more ban) for the buc .C Another lecturer solemnly and scientifically announced Cto disarm is to )etrid of all your stuff.C (&his may, in turn, e>plain 'hy they see serious tal of nuclear disarmament as perfectly resistable, notto mention foolish. f disarmament is emasculation, ho' could any real man even consider it39 A professor@s e>planation of 'hy theM\ missile is to be placed in the silos of the ne'est Minuteman missiles, instead of replacin) the older, less accurate ones, 'as

Cbecause they@re in the nicest hole-you@re not )oin) to tae the nicest missile you have and put it in a crummy hole.C ther

lectures 'ere filled 'ith discussion of vertical erector launchers, thrust-to-'ei)ht ratios, soft laydo'ns, deep penetration, and the comparative advanta)es of pro- tracted versus spasm attacs-or 'hat one military adviser to the ational Security *ouncil has called Creleasin) "! to 6! percent of our me)atonna)e in oneor)asmic 'hump.C17 &here 'as serious concern about the need to harden our missiles and the need to Cface it, the Gussians are alittle harder than 'e are.C Disbelievin) )lances 'ould occasionally pass bet'een me and my one ally in the summer pro)tam,

another 'oman, but no one else seemed to notice. f the ima)ery is transparent, its si)nificance may be less so .&he temptation is to dra' some conclusions about the defense intellectuals themselves-about 'hat they are really talin) about, ortheir motivationsB but the temptation is 'orth resistin). ndividual motivations cannot neces- sarily be read directly from ima)eryBthe ima)ery itself does not ori)inate in these particular individuals but in a broader cultural conte>t. Se>ual ima)ery has, of course,

been a part of the 'orld of 'arfare since lon) before nuclear 'eapons 'ere even a )leam in a physicist@s eye. &he history of theatomic bomb proEect itself is rife 'ith overt ima)es of competitive male se>ualit y, as is the discourse ofthe early nuclear physi- cists, strate)ists, and SA* commanders.@2 Ioth the military itself and the arms manufacturersare constantly e>ploitin) the phallic ima)ery and promise of se>ual domination that their

'eapons so conveniently su))est. A 4uic )lance at the publications that constitute some of the research sources for

defense intellectuals maes the depth and pervasiveness of the ima)ery evident. Air Force Ma)a0ine@s advertisements for ne' 'eapons, for e>ample, rival layboy as a catalo) of men@s se>ual an>ieties and fantasies. *onsider the follo'in), from the June 1;62issue% embla0oned in bold letters across the top of a t'o-pa)e advertisement for the A-6I :arrier -CSpea Softly and *arry a Ii)Stic.C &he copy belo' boasts Can e>ceptional thrust to 'ei)ht ratioC and Cvectored thrust capability that maes the . .. uni4ue rapidresponse possible.C &hen, Eust in case 'e@ve failed to )et the mes- sa)e, the last line reminds us, CJust the sort of@Ii) Stic@ &eddyGoosevelt had in mind 'ay bac in 1;!1. C1? An ad for the I$ (IHU-1!?/I9 reads% &he nly +ay to Solve Some roblems is toDi) Deep. &:$ IMI, $&* $$G8T $$&GA&G C+ill provide the tactical air commander 'ith efficient po'er to deny orsi)nificantly delay enemy airfield operations.C CDesi)ned to ma>imi0e run'ay craterin) by optimi0in) penetration dynamics andutili0in) the most efficient 'arhead yet desi)ned.C1" (n case the symbolism of Ccraterin)C seems far-fetched, must point out that am not the first to see it. &he French use the Mururoa Atoll in the South acific for their nuclear tests and assi)n a 'oman@s name to

each of the craters they )ou)e out of the earth.9 Another, truly e>traordinary, source of phallic ima!ery is

to be found in descriptions of nuclear blasts themselves . :ere, for e>ample, is one by Eournalist +illiamHaurence, 'ho 'as brou)ht to a)asai by the Air Force to 'itness the bombin). C&hen, Eust 'hen it appeared as thou)h the thin)had settled do'n in to a state of permanence, there came shootin) out of the top a )iant mushroom that increased the si0e of thepillar to a total of 72,!!! feet. &he mushroom top 'as even more alive than the pillar, seethin) and boilin) in a 'hite fury of creamyfoam, si00lin) up'ard and then descendin) earth'ard, a thousand )eysers rolled into one. t ept stru))lin) in an elemental fury,

lie a creature in the act of breain) the bonds that held it do'n.C@6 8iven the de)ree to 'hich it suffuses their 'orld, that defense intellectuals themselves use a lot of se>ual ima)ery does not seemespecially surprisin). or does it, by itself, constitute )rounds for imputin) motivation. For me, the interestin)issue is not so much the ima)ery@s psychody- namic ori)ins, as ho' it functions. :o' does itserve to mae it possible for strate)ic planners and other defense intellectuals to do theirmacabre 'or3 :o' does it function in their construction of a 'or 'orld that feels tenable3 Several stories illustrate thecomple>ity. Durin) the summer pro)ram, a )roup of us visited the e' Hondon avy base 'here nuclear submarines arehomeported and the 8eneral Dynamics $lectric Ioat boatyards 'here a ne' &rident submarine 'as bein) constructed. At one pointdurin) the trip 'e too a tour of a nuclear po'ered submarine. +hen 'e reached the part of the sub 'here the missiles are housed,the officer accompanyin) us turned 'ith a )rin and ased if 'e 'anted to stic our hands throu)h a hole to Cpat the missile.C at the


22/124

missile3 &he ima)e reappeared the ne>t 'ee, 'hen a lecturer scornfully declared that the only real reason for deployin) cruise andershin) missiles in +estern $urope 'as Cso that our allies can pat them.C Some months later, another )roup of us 'ent to be briefed at GAD (the orth American Aerospace Defense *ommand9. n the 'ay bac, our plane 'ent to refuel at ffut Air ForceIase, the Strate)ic Air *ommand head- 4uarters near maha, ebrasa. +hen 'ord leaed out that our landin) 'ould be delayed because the ne' I-1 bomber 'as in the area, the plane became char)ed 'ith a tan)ible e>citement that built as 'e fle' in ourholdin) pattern, people cranin) their necs to try to catch a )limpse of the I-1 in the sies, and clima>ed as 'e touched do'n on therun'ay and hurtled past it. Hater, 'hen returned to the *enter encountered a man 'ho, unable to )o on the trip, said to me

enviously, C hear you )ot to pat a I-.C +hat is all this Cpattin)C3 +hat are men doin) 'hen they CpatC

these hi)h-tech phalluses3 Pattin! is an assertion of intimacy$ sexual possession$

affectionate domination( The thrill and pleasure of pattin! the missile is the

proximity of all that phallic po#er$ the possi*ility of "icariously appro2 priatin! it

as oneDs o#n( ut if the predilection for pattin! phallic o*ects indicates

somethin! of the homoerotic excitement su!!ested *y the lan!ua!e , it also has

another side. For pattin) is not only an act of se>ual intimacy. t is also 'hat one does to babies,small children, the pet do). ne pats that 'hich is small , cute, and harmless-not terrifyin)lydestructive. at it, and its lethality disappears. Much of the se>ual ima)ery heard 'as rife 'ith the sort ofambi)uity su))ested by Cpattin) the missiles.C &he ima)ery can be construed as a deadly serious display of

the connections bet'een masculine se>uality and the arms race. At the same time, it can also *e

heard as a #ay of minimiAin! the seriousness of militarist endea"ors$ of denyin!

their deadly conse2 ,uences( A former enta)on tar)et analyst, in tellin) me 'hy he thou)ht plans for Climitednuclear 'arC 'ere ridiculous, said, CHoo, you )otta understand that it@s a pissin) contest-you )otta e>pect them to use everythin)

they@ve )ot.C +hat does this ima)e say3 Most obviously, that this is all about competition for manhood, and thus

there is tremendous dan)er. Iut at the same time, the ima!e diminishes the contest and its

outcomes$ *y representin! it as an act of *oyish mischief(

their tri"ialiAation of nuclear #eapons throu!h technostrate!ic discourse leads todesensitiAation and allo#s them to "ie# their #eapons as extensions ofthemsel"es$ not threats to all people$ includin! themsel"es

Cohn G' foundin) director of the *onsortium on 8ender, Security and :uman Gi)hts (*arol,#Se> and Death in the Gational +orld of Defense ntellectuals, Si)ns, ol. 1, o. 7, +ithinand +ithout% +omen, 8ender, and &heory (Summer, 1;6"9, pp. ?6"-"16. JS&G9 K/H$A

n other 'ords, 'hat learned at the pro)ram is that talin) about nuclear 'eapons is fun . am serious.&he 'ords are fun to sayB they are racy, se>y, snappy. Tou can thro' them around in rapid-fire succession. &hey are 4uic,clean, li)htB they trip off the ton)ue. Tou can reel off do0ens of them in seconds, for)ettin) aboutho' one mi)ht Eust interfere 'ith the ne>t, not to mention 'ith the lives beneath them . am notdescribin) a phenomenon e>perienced only by the perverse, althou)h the phenomenon itself may be perverse indeed. earlyeveryone observed clearly too pleasure in usin) the 'ords. t mattered little 'hether 'e 'ere lecturers or students, ha's or

doves, men or 'omen- 'e all learned it, and 'e all spoe it. Some of us may have spoen 'ith a self-consciouslyironic ed)e, but the pleasure 'as there nonetheless. art of the appeal 'as the thrill of bein)able to manipulate an arcane lan)ua)e, the po'er of enterin) the secret in)dom, bein)

someone in the no'. t is a )lo' that is a si)nificant part of learnin) about nuclear 'eaponry .Fe' no', and those 'ho do are po'erful. Tou can rub elbo's 'ith them, perhaps even be one

yourself . &hat feelin), of course, does not come solely from the lan)ua)e. &he 'hole set-up of the summerpro)ram itself, for e>ample, communicated the allures of po'er and the benefits of 'hite maleprivile)es. +e 'ere provided 'ith lu>urious accommodations, complete 'ith youn) blac 'omen 'ho came in to clean up afterus each dayB )enerous fundin) paid not only our transportation and food but also a lar)e honorarium for attendin)B 'e met inlavishly appointed classrooms and loun)es. Access to e>cellent athletic facilities 'as )uaranteed by a C&emporary rivile)e *ard,C 'hich seemed to me to sum up the essence of the e>perience. erhaps most important of all 'ere the endless allusions by ourlecturers to C'hat told John WennedyXC and Cand then :enry Wissin)erX said,C or the lunches 'here 'e could sit ne>t to a

prominent political fi)ure and listen to +ashin)ton )ossip. A more subtle, but perhaps more important, element of


23/124

learnin) the lan)ua)e is that, 'hen you spea it, you feel in control. &he e>perience of masterin) the 'ords infuses your relation to the material. Tou can )et so )ood at manipulatin) the 'ords that it almost feels asthou)h the 'hole thin) is under control. Hearnin) the lan)ua)e )ives a sense of 'hat 'ould call co)nitivemasteryB the feelin) of mastery of technolo)y that is finally not controllable but is instead po'erful

beyond human comprehension, po'erful in a 'ay that stretches and even thrills the ima)ination. The more

con"ersations / participated in usin! this lan!ua!e$ the less fri!htened / #as ofnuclear #ar . :o' can learnin) to spea a lan)ua)e have such a po'erful effect3 ne ans'er,

believe, is that the process of learnin) the lan)ua)e is itself a part of 'hat removes you fromthe reality of nuclear 'ar. entered a 'orld 'here people spoe 'hat amounted to a forei)n lan)ua)e, a lan)ua)e had tolearn if 'e 'ere to communicate 'ith one another. So became en)a)ed in the challen)e of it-of decodin) the acronyms and fi)urin)

out 'hich 'ere the proper verbs to use. My focus 'as on the tas of solvin) the pu00les, developin)lan)ua)e competency- not on the 'eapons and 'ars behind the 'ords. Althou)h my interest

'as in thinin) about nuclear 'ar and its prevention, my ener)y 'as else- 'here. Iy the time 'asthrou)h, had learned far more than a set of abstract 'ords that refers to )risly subEects, for even 'hen the subEects of a standard$n)lish and nuespea description seem to be the same, they are, in fact, about utterly different phenomena. *onsider the follo'in)descriptions, in each of 'hich the subEect is the aftermath of a nuclear attac% $verythin) 'as blac, had vanished into the blacdust, 'as destroyed. nly the flames that 'ere be)innin) to lic their 'ay up had any color. From the dust that 'as lie a fo),fi)ures be)an to loom up, blac, hairless, faceless. &hey screamed 'ith voices that 'ere no lon)er human. &heir screams dro'nedout the )roans risin) every'here from the rubble, )roans that seemed to rise from the very earth itself.perts comes from

characteristics of the lan)ua)e itself% the distance afforded *y its a*stractionK the sense of

control afforded by masterin) itB and the fact that its content and concerns are that of the usersrather than the victims of nuclear 'eapons. n learnin) the lan)ua)e, one )oes from bein) the passive, po'erless

victim to the competent, 'ily, po'erful purveyor of nuclear threats and nuclear e>plosive po'er. The enormous

destructi"e effects of nuclear #eapons systems *ecome extensions of the self$


24/124

rather than threats to it(


25/124

./N0 P4O./Fposed to hi)h levels of radiation, includin) uranium minersB 'orers at reactors and processin) facilitiesB the 4uarter of a millionmilitary personnel 'ho too place in #atomic battlefield e>ercisesB #do'n'inders from test sitesB and Marshallese slanders.

olitically, nuclear re)imes re4uire a level of secrecy and security measures that e>clude themaEority of citi0ens, and in most countries, all 'omen, from defense policy and decision-main).


26/124

irrelevant distractionB deterrin) a +MD attac on our homeland is the precondition on 'hich political freedom and social life

depend, and so it must be thou)ht about in a class by itself. +e mae t'o reEoinders to this claim. First, 'e note that in theculture of nuclear defense intellectuals, even raisin) the issue of costs is dele)itimi0ed, in lar)epart throu)h its association 'ith #the feminine. t is the ind of thin) that #hysterical house'ives doB somethin)done by people not tou)h and hard enou)h to loo harsh #reality in the eye, unsentimentallyB not stron) enou)h to separate their

feelin)s from theori0in) mass deathB people 'ho donPt have #the stones for 'ar. Feminist analysis reEects the culturaldivision of meanin) 'hich devalues anythin) associated 'ith 'omen or femininity . t sees in thatsame cultural valuin) of the so-called #masculine over the so-called #feminine an e>planation of 'hy it appears so self-evident to

many that 'hat is called #military necessity should appropriately be prioriti0ed over all other human necessities. And it4uestions the assumptions that besto' the mantle of #realism on such a constrained focus on

'eapons and state po'er. 4ather than simply *ein! an ;o*ecti"e= reflection of

political reality$ #e understand this thou!ht system as 19 a partial and distorted

picture of reality$ and %9 a maor contri*utor to creatin! the "ery circumstances it

purports to descri*e and protect a!ainst( Second, Eust as feminists tend to be septical about the efficacy of

violence, they mi)ht be e4ually septical about the efficacy of deterrence. r, to put it another 'ay, if 'ar is a #lie, so isdeterrence. &his is not, of course, to say that deterrence as a phenomena never occursB no doubt one opponent is sometimesdeterred from attacin) another by the fear of retaliation. Iut rather deterrence as a theory, a discourse and setof practices under'ritten by that discourse, is a fiction. 1? *arol *ohn and Sarah Guddic +orin) aper o.1!7 Deterrence theory is an elaborate, abstract conceptual edifice, 'hich posits a hypothetical relation bet'een t'o different sets of 'eapons systems or rather, bet'een abstractions of t'o different sets of 'eapons systems, for in fact, as both common sense andmilitary e>pertise tells us, human error and technolo)ical imperfection mean that one could not actually e>pect real 'eapons to

function in the 'ays simply assumed in deterrence theory. Iecause deterrence theory sets in play the hypotheticalrepresentations of various 'eapons systems, rather than assessments of ho' they 'ould actually perform or fail to perform in 'arfare, it can be nearly infinitely elaborated, in a never endin)re)ression of intercontinental ballistic missile )aps and theater 'arfare )aps and tactical #mini- nue )aps, adinfinitum, thus le)itimatin) both massive vertical proliferation and arms racin). Deterrence theoryis also a fiction in that it depends upon #rational actors, for 'hom 'hat counts as #rational isthe same, independent of culture, history, or individual difference. t depends on those #rational actorsperfectly understandin) the meanin) of #si)nals communicated by military actions, despite dependence on technolo)ies thatsometimes malfunctionB despite cultural difference and the lac of communication that is part of bein) political enemiesB despite the

difficulties of ensurin) mutual understandin) even 'hen best friends mae direct face-to- face statements to each other. t

depends on those same #rational actors en)a)in) in a very specific ind of calculus thatincludes one set of variables (e.)., 'eapons si0e, deliverability, survivability, as 'ell as the #credibility of their and theiropponentPs threats9, and e>cludes other variables (such as domestic political pressures, economics, orindividual subEectivity 9. +hat is striin) from a feminist perspective is that even 'hile #realistsmay 'orry that some opponents are so #insufficiently rational as to be undeterrable, this doesnot lead them to search for a more reliable form of ensurin) security, or an approach that is notso 'eapons-dependent. *ynthia *ocburn, in her study of 'omenPs peace proEects in conflict 0ones, describes one of the 'omenPs activities as helpin) each other )ive up #dan)erous day dreams.


27/124

8eterrence reinforces the self


28/124

'ar. Iecause it 'ould not be morally 'ron) (or ri)ht9 to retaliate should deterrence fail, it is morally permissible to threaten toretaliate should deterrence fail, thus counter-value deterrence policies can be Eustified. Morris offers the follo'in) principle to sho'this% A sincere threat to do \ in circumstances * is morally permissible only if doin) \ in * is not morally impermissible. (Morris1;62, 7;!9 :ence, once it is established that actual retaliation is permissible, by this principle it can also be established that

intendin) to retaliate is permissible. find this account e>tremely disturbin) from an ecolo)ical feministperspec tive for several reasons. bviously, on this account, the potential moral commu nity is limited to thosecapable of contractin), 'hich leaves out most, if not all, of nonhuman nature and leaves certain

human bein)s 'ith 4uestionable status as 'ell. :o'ever, my purpose here is to e>amine Morris@s position throu)hthe lens of lum'ood@s ecolo)ical feminist criti4ue of the self/other dualism. &he self/other dualism implicit in:obbes@s account is e>panded here so that the self becomes the nation attemptin) deterrence,and the other becomes the potential a))ressor. roceedin) from :obbes@s model of e)oism as rationality, thenation attemptin) deterrence vie's the relation bet'een itself and the other nation in terms ofhyperseparation, seein) strict boundaries bet'een self and other. &he only motivation forcooperation is self-interestB thus, the other is only of instrumental value. &he values and )oals of thecivilians in the a))ressin) nation are bac)rounded, as their proEects and )oals are not seen as important factorsin the e4uation. ndividual citi0ens are incorporated into the lar)er self of the a))ressin) nation,

'hich is in turn incorporated into the self of the nation seein) deterrence. &his picture also involves homo)eni0ation, seein) all the individual citi0ens of an a))ressin) nation as the same, simply as

other , rather than as particular individuals. Morris@s threat principle is disturbin) as 'ell. First, it seems Eustplain false to say that if it is permissible to do somethin) under certain circumstances, it is permissible to threaten to do that thin)should those circumstances occur. t may be morally permissible to tae a child to the doctor if he or she becomes ill, butimpermissible to fri)hten the child into doin) somethin) 'ith threats of a visit to the doctor. &he threat itself has conse4uences thatare different from the conse4uences of doin) the action 'hich is threatened. f course, deterrence theorists reali0e this, for it isprecisely one of these other conse4uences, namely deterrence, that is sou)ht in deterrence policy. &he threat, ho'ever, taes placefrom 'ithin a morality accordin) to Morris. &hus, the 4uestion becomes 'hether it is morally permissible to vie' people purely

instrumentally from 'ithin a morality. Main) such a threat sho's clearly that the other nation and itsciti0ens are vie'ed in terms of a strict self/other dualism, in 'hich they are seen as havin)purely instrumental value, alon) 'ith everythin) else that )oes 'ith this. :o'ever, treatin) others in this 'ay is the opposite of treatin) them morally. t is to treat them purely as a means. have ar)ued that Morris@s account failsto Eustify the threat of retaliation, for it re4uires treatin) other moral a)ents purelyinstrumentally . Morris tries to Eustify the sincere threat to retaliate by sho'in) that actual retaliation 'ould not be morally 'ron). t 'ould not be morally ri)ht either, for no morality 'ould be in force, )iven the end of cooperative relations. :o'ever, 'hether ri)ht, 'ron), or neutral, actually retaliatin) a)ainst civilians because of the actions en)a)ed in by their )overnments

re4uires e>treme homo)eni0ation.


29/124

./N0 22 TECH

Technolo!y is at the root of #omen:s domination2 it prioritiAes masculine scientific+no#led!e o"er ours$GAH ;" rofessor of $conomic at the University of Melbourne (isvan, #+omen@s

no'led)e as $>pert no'led)e %ndian +omen and $codevelopment edited by aren J. +arren, boo( K/H$A &echnolo)ical innovations, such as irri)ation and plant monoculture, are typical of men@s a)riculture. &heimpact of these and other 8reen Gevolution techni4ues has often been devastatin) for 'omen. &he scarcity of 'ater in the &hird +orld reveals much. &hou)h "< percent of the 'orld@s 'ater use is dedicated to irri)ation, only !periences 'iththe effects of technolo)y 'ere typical. &he modern *hipo movement be)an as a response to floodin) due to deforestation in themountains above *hipo villa)es. &he response to deforestation varied by )ender. Men 'ere dra'n to 'a)elabor Eobs in the forestryindustry. +omen 'ere dra'n to reforestation, since their concerns 'ere different. &hese include the entire cycle of concerns that

depend on forests, from ade4uate 'ater supplies to fuel and fodder and sources of traditional medicines. A healthyecosystem is a necessity for the safety of children and for the possibility of future )enerations. +hen villa)ers 'ere ased about 'hich trees should be planted as part of a reforestation plan, the men immediately chose fruittrees. &he 'omen responded% C&he men 'ould tae the fruits and sell them by the roadside. &he cash 'ill only )o to buy li4uor and

tobacco. +e 'omen prefer fuel and fodder treesC (Danelman and Davidson, 2!219 +e can see that social forestry is afeminist issue. &ree hu))in) by *hipo 'omen is more than the simple attempt to save treesfrom lo))in) companies. t is a distinctively feminist political act )ro'in) out of typically

'omen@s no'led)e of the forest. &he circlin) of trees can be understood as representin) the broad circle of concernsthat 'omen understand. &rees mean 'ater for *hipo 'omen. &rees mean safety from floodin). Forests, not simply plantmonoculture, mean food, fodder, buildin) materials, and medicines. :u))in) trees is as much adefense of culture and future )enerations as it is a defense of nature. *onsider, as 'ell, the issue ofintellectual property ri)hts debated at the Gio Summit and embodied in the 8A&& and AF&A a)reements. &he )overnment of theUnited States and First +orld medical technolo)y corporations demanded the ri)ht to financial re'ard for medicines derived fromthe &hird +orld@s biolo)ical diversity. Tet, 'hereas medical science has e>amined less than one percent of these resources for

potential medical benefit, indi)enous 'omen@s medical no'led)e has developed over forty centuries. +omen@s medical

no'led)e is a vast storehouse of e>pertise, yet it )oes unreco)ni0ed because of the biases ofmodern science a)ainst traditional, indi)enous forms of no'led)e. &he debate over 'hether northernscience should )ain its financial re'ard remains immune to the ri)hts of indi)enous 'omen. $pistemic biases lie thiscannot be addressed simply by addin) a ne' fact to the dominant paradi)m of masculini0edno'led)e. +omen@s no'led)e is not valued 'hen it challen)es the paradi)m. Developmenttheory has pro)ressed from 'hat can only be described as racist and se>ist be)innin)s. 2evertheless, contemporary pro)rams that are advertised as profamily often remain anti'oman. Masculinity and theculture of hi)h technolo)y are connected throu)h the division of labor. Men@s cultural statustends to increase under the influence of technolo)y, 'hile 'omen@s status tends to decrease. Toun) men, in particular, can insist on becomin) Cmodern,C often 'earin) +estern clothes and sportin) +estern electronic )oods. +omen are e>pected to maintain traditional values and dress (Mies 1;66, 1


30/124

'omen are constructed as dependent or interdependent. Men@s a)riculture, 'hich can hardly be understood asanythin) but a practical activity, is nevertheless represented as a Ctheoretical practice,C that is, as an applied science. +omen@s

e>pert no'led)e of soil, climate, and seeds is mar)inali0ed as anecdotalB it is often dismissed as mere C'ives@ tales.C atriarchalcultures tend to locate 'omen@s practices on the border bet'een nature and culture. &heseinvolve carin) for others, e.)., motherin), cooin), health care, and certain inds of simple, traditionala)ricultural labor that are lo' paid or unpaid, such as 'eedin) and tendin) to livestoc.

+omen@s 'or is the everyday 'or of translation bet'een the needs of the environment andthe needs of the human community. Such depictions of a 'oman@s CproperC role create adilemma% 'hile such labor is often e>perienced by 'omen as an oppressive demand, theenvironment and the human community cannot survive 'ithout it. *hildren@s health and safety depend onre)ular access to clean 'ater. &raditional medicine and a)riculture depend on the biodiversity of anenvironment that can supply medicines as 'ell as fuel, fodder, and food. *arin) labor holds to)ether the family and theenvironment and is inherently interested in future )enerations. &hird +orld development, therefore, is a feministproEect. ts success re4uires the revaluation of 'omen@s carin) labor. &he issue, then, is ho' an epistemolo)y can be constructedthat is faithful to 'hat &hird +orld 'omen no' as 'ell as to the 'ays in 'hich they no'. First, some clarifications. nemphasi0in) )ender bias in the construction of 'hat is counted as no'led)e, am speain) about the construction of )endercate)ories, not about particular individuals. +hile )ender does have a po'erful hold on individuals, there are other forces thatintersect in the individual as 'ell, in

ecofeminism k - michigan7 2014

Documents