Feminism and Environmental Ethics: A Materialist Perspective 219Ecofeminism and the Woman/Nature Relation
Ecofeminism has been identified as part of a ‘deeper’ or more radical approach to
the ecological crisis (Merchant, 1992; Eckersley, 1992; Dobson, 1995). What is
contentious in ecofeminism is the way in which the relationship between women
and nature has been represented. Elsewhere I have made the distinction between
affinity and socialist/social contructionist ecofeminism (Mellor, 1992a, 1996),
that is between those who see women as having a bodily or cultural affinity with
the natural world through their woman-ness as mothers, life-givers, nurturers, car-
ers, and those who identify similar activities associated with women but see these
as imposed upon women by male-dominated societies.
Affinity ecofeminists such as Andree Collard (1988) adopt a radical difference
perspective seeing men/patriarchy as the source of eco-destruction and women as
the contemporary representatives of an ‘ancient gynocentric way of life’ (p14) that
exhibited ‘nurturance-based values which women experienced and projected not
only on their goddesses but on to every creature among them’ (p8). The distinc-
tion between men and patriarchy implies that men are not necessarily bad, although
Collard appears to wish to assert that all women are good. The source of women’s
affinity with nature is their common identity as mothers ‘whether or not she per-
sonally experiences biological mothering’ (p102). Men will be redeemed if they
abandon patriarchy and embrace the values associated with women. What will
motivate men to do so is less clear and as with much feminist writing that describes
the patriarchal destruction of original matriarchal/egalitarian society the origin
and nature of patriarchy is problematic. Collard suggests that male envy of wom-
en’s ability to create life may be a psychological underpinning of patriarchy.
Affinity ecofeminism does not necessarily see masculine–feminine dualism as
destructive. Instead they can be seen as complementary (Henderson, 1983). Cos-
mologically the masculine and the feminine are seen as the two complementary
sides of a common hu(man)ity that have become disaggregated in ways that are
socially and ecologically dangerous. Destructive behaviour occurs because mascu-
line values are currently too dominant, more emphasis on feminine values are
needed to restore the balance. I have described this as an ecofeminine rather than
an ecofeminist perspective (Mellor, 1992c).
In contrast to asserting the affinity of women and nature, ecofeminists who
come from an anarchist or socialist background tend to see sex/gender inequality
as resting on other social inequalities. Women’s association with nature is not
explained by women’s ‘natural’ affinity, but is socially constructed. Ynestra King
(1990), from an anarchist perspective, sees sex/gender inequality as part of the
wider question of hierarchy in society. She sees women as being ‘historically posi-
tioned’ at the ‘biological dividing line where the organic emerges into the social’
(pp116–117). Carolyn Merchant (1990), from a socialist feminist perspective, sees
environmental problems as ‘rooted in the rise of capitalist patriarchy and the ideol-
ogy that the Earth and nature can be exploited for human progress’ (p103). How-
ever, neither King nor Merchant seeks to radically dissociate themselves from