Feminism and Environmental Ethics: A Materialist Perspective 229to ‘see’ the vulnerability of human immanence. Even when this vulnerability is
grasped, this does not mean that hu(man)ity can reclaim an original harmony that
has been lost or a teleological harmony to come as many green thinkers imply. If
anything, hu(man)ity is essentially in conflict with non-human nature in using
human consciousness and reflexivity to create a special and privileged niche. In
doing this hu(man)ity is neither natural or unnatural. Therefore, deep ecologists
cannot say ‘nature’ would be better off without hu(man)ity. However, hu(man)ity
cannot exist without ‘nature’ and as there is no ‘natural’ way for hu(man)ity to
relate to it, human existence in nature becomes a political and moral question.
How can we live? How ought we to live? This is human-centred in orientation and
motivation but the political conclusions would need at least to recognize the eco-
logical framework of human activity. This would not satisfy deep ecologists but it
would go much further towards balancing human–nature relations than most cur-
rent political theory and practice. If, as I have argued, there is no natural balance
in ‘nature’ and as hu(man)ity cannot transcend its ecological connectedness, a sus-
tainable connectedness for hu(man)ity would need to be created through human
reason and political action. In short, a politics of human–nature relations (Mellor,
1997b, p188).
Such a politics would start from an analysis of the structures that have created
the present pattern of malconnectedness between the dominant structures within
hu(man)ity and non-human nature. For ecofeminism, the subordination of women,
particularly as represented in Western dualist social structures and patterns of
thought, is central to understanding the destructiveness of current human–nature
relations. In bringing together ecology and feminism, ecofeminists see women and
nature as subject to the destructive socioeconomic and technological systems of
modern male-dominated society. Sex/gender is put at the heart of this analysis, but
this is not to exclude other cross-cutting dimensions of oppression and exploita-
tion. To start with one oppression is not to claim that it has precedence, but to see
if elements of the analysis may be useful in looking at other oppressions.
The focus of materialist ecofeminism on sex/gender inequality in the construc-
tion of human–nature relations does not collapse the social into the biological/
ecological, but it does not seek to radically separate them. Materialist ecofeminism
sees all hu(man)ity as embodied and those bodies are sexed. Gender does not map
directly on to sex and sex itself is heavily socially circumscribed. ‘Man’ and ‘woman’
are the product of the interaction of biological and social factors. There is no essen-
tial or universal type of man or woman, but ‘men’ and ‘women’ do exist with
enough commonality to make such concepts practically and theoretically useful.
For materialist ecofeminism, there are aspects of women’s bodies and social experi-
ence that can usefully be explored to help understand the current imbalance in
human–nature relations. This imbalance has occurred within the context of a global
system that is male-dominated, specifically by men from economically dominant
societies with a history of war, militarism and imperialism, nationalism, racism and
colonialism. The problem for such a society is how political change can occur. Cer-
tainly, there is the case for a struggle around ideas and ethical frameworks, but this