118
5
solution to the problems. According to Shiva, the work of women in subsistence
production is sustainable. On the other hand, men take part in the production of
goods that degrade the environment. Shiva also contends that women seek development that ensures water and food, while men seek development that generates
income (Shiva 1989).
Shiva’s ecofeminist theory has gained much attention and is important for
the thinking on gender and the environment. The theory brings together perspectives and approaches that previously were separate. It contains elements of
feminism and environmental consideration together with dependency theory in
which development in the Global North is viewed as based on lack of development or underdevelopment in the South.
For feminist political ecologies, it is relevant to combine some of the same types
of elements as those in Shiva’s ecofeminism. However, Shiva’s theory also contains
weaknesses and has been criticized by feminist scholars. A principal objection is
that the theory seems to be based on the view that men and women are naturally
disposed to distinctive ways of interacting with the environment. Such a viewpoint
corresponds to the way feminists of the 1960s and 1970s tended to be concerned
with highlighting similarities among women, and contrasting these to similarities
among men. This approach has been criticized as constituting gender dichotomies
with a polarized view of what women and men can and should do in society. Such
gender dichotomies associate women with the private sphere and men with the
public sphere. Furthermore, women are regarded as being closer to nature than
men, while men are associated with intellect and culture. In a later development,
feminists instead tend to emphasize great diversities among women, and that they
may be situated in various situations which may influence their thoughts and
actions differently. Women—as well as men—belong to various classes, castes, age
groups and ethnic groups.
Here it is appropriate to look at the difference between sex and gender. Sex
designates biological differences between men and women, whereas gender refers
to cultural interpretations of these differences. In many areas, there are statistical
differences in the choices that women and men make in their lives. The differences
may arise from various cultural and social causes, in contrast to the essentialization
associated with ideas about biological differences between women and men as the
main, or only, causes behind different gender roles.
Anthropologists and sociologists have criticized Shiva’s ecofeminism on the
basis of empirical research that does not support the general claim of women being
more environmentally inclined than men (Jackson 1993; Braidotti et al. 1994). This
may be related to a diversity of patterns of gendered divisions of labour in different
groups and locations. Often tasks in a society are divided by gender, some being
done mostly by men, others mostly by women. However, what is considered to be
women’s work or men’s work varies from society to society and is subject to considerable change over time. Some of this work may cause environmental degradation,
others not, and a general gender pattern in environmental effects cannot be concluded.
Shiva criticizes not only the Western development model, but also Western science, which she thinks is based on reductionism. We agree that reductionism can be
Chapter 5 · Gender and Power: Feminist Political Ecologies
5
solution to the problems. According to Shiva, the work of women in subsistence
production is sustainable. On the other hand, men take part in the production of
goods that degrade the environment. Shiva also contends that women seek development that ensures water and food, while men seek development that generates
income (Shiva 1989).
Shiva’s ecofeminist theory has gained much attention and is important for
the thinking on gender and the environment. The theory brings together perspectives and approaches that previously were separate. It contains elements of
feminism and environmental consideration together with dependency theory in
which development in the Global North is viewed as based on lack of development or underdevelopment in the South.
For feminist political ecologies, it is relevant to combine some of the same types
of elements as those in Shiva’s ecofeminism. However, Shiva’s theory also contains
weaknesses and has been criticized by feminist scholars. A principal objection is
that the theory seems to be based on the view that men and women are naturally
disposed to distinctive ways of interacting with the environment. Such a viewpoint
corresponds to the way feminists of the 1960s and 1970s tended to be concerned
with highlighting similarities among women, and contrasting these to similarities
among men. This approach has been criticized as constituting gender dichotomies
with a polarized view of what women and men can and should do in society. Such
gender dichotomies associate women with the private sphere and men with the
public sphere. Furthermore, women are regarded as being closer to nature than
men, while men are associated with intellect and culture. In a later development,
feminists instead tend to emphasize great diversities among women, and that they
may be situated in various situations which may influence their thoughts and
actions differently. Women—as well as men—belong to various classes, castes, age
groups and ethnic groups.
Here it is appropriate to look at the difference between sex and gender. Sex
designates biological differences between men and women, whereas gender refers
to cultural interpretations of these differences. In many areas, there are statistical
differences in the choices that women and men make in their lives. The differences
may arise from various cultural and social causes, in contrast to the essentialization
associated with ideas about biological differences between women and men as the
main, or only, causes behind different gender roles.
Anthropologists and sociologists have criticized Shiva’s ecofeminism on the
basis of empirical research that does not support the general claim of women being
more environmentally inclined than men (Jackson 1993; Braidotti et al. 1994). This
may be related to a diversity of patterns of gendered divisions of labour in different
groups and locations. Often tasks in a society are divided by gender, some being
done mostly by men, others mostly by women. However, what is considered to be
women’s work or men’s work varies from society to society and is subject to considerable change over time. Some of this work may cause environmental degradation,
others not, and a general gender pattern in environmental effects cannot be concluded.
Shiva criticizes not only the Western development model, but also Western science, which she thinks is based on reductionism. We agree that reductionism can be
Chapter 5 · Gender and Power: Feminist Political Ecologies