Throughout the readings I’ve done over my various classes, in general the Global South typically has a more intense relationship with problematic ideologies than the northern hemisphere. Using ecofeminism, we can analyze these types of activisms and ideologies to compare and contrast our situations.
We can start understanding the south’s interaction with ‘environmental degradation’ by looking at Scott London’s interview with Vandana Shiva. In the interview, Shiva states that, “I’ve just been told that Nestle has taken out patents on the making of pullao. (Pullao is the way we make our rice in India, with either vegetables or meat or whatever.) Before you know it, every common use of plants will be patented by a Western corporation.” Shiva’s point here is that capitalism is clearly negatively affecting many parts of the planet.
We can use this anti capitalism ideology to look at some ways that ecofeminism excels in the western world. The Green New Deal is a perfect example of ecofeminism making strides to limit corporation’s carbon footprint. I’ve included a picture of me at a protest on campus, hosted by the Sunrise Movement. The Sunrise Movement is a large group with an on campus chapter. We organized the climate walk out last semester, and are working this semester to support Ed Markey and Bernie Sander’s campaigns. I believe that the Sunrise Movement embodies some of the most important things that ecofeminism stands for.
Comparing this week’s spotlighted ecofeminist, Bina Agarwal, with last week’s, Hobgood-Oster, we can compare the way they talk about ecofeminism to analyze topics, like corporations, with differing frameworks. Starting with this week’s reading, Agarwal’s The Gender and Environment Debate: Lessons from India looks at the global south’s ecofeminism through agriculture, stating, “The Green Revolution embodies a technological mix which gives primacy to laboratory-based research and manufactured inputs and treats agriculture as an isolated production system.” (pg135) Agarwal’s description of the agriculture industry in the south is a discussion that has many different factors than that of the traditional western ecofeminism, as there is a large disparity in the access to resources that we have in the western world. Then, we can look at Hobgood-Oster’s Ecofeminism: Historic and International Evolution, “Combining feminist and deep ecological perspectives — in and of themselves extremely varied ways of thinking about reality — is a complex, transgressive process that is often in flux.” Hobgood-Oster’s perspective looks at more theoretical discussion. While Agarwal looks at serious physical problems effecting her reality, Hobgood-Oster looks at theory, and how feminist perspectives change. Both of these types of ecofeminism are important to utilizing ecofeminism to its maximum potential.
Overall, I found the traditionally western ecofeminists to be relatable, which made their content more engaging for me. I do believe there is a huge amount of value in comparing and contrasting these different mindsets, as they allow for more types of solutions. The involvement I’ve had with ecofeminism and social justice has been liberating and fulfilling for me, which has made ecofeminism an even more valuable ideology for me.
The Green New Deal:
<https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf>
Last week reading:
This week’s reading:
<https://www.globalresearch.ca/in-the-footsteps-of-gandhi-an-interview-with-vandana-shiva/5505135>
Hi! I think it is really awesome that you included your personal experiences with a local protest on campus and connected that to the ecofeminism ideology. Personally I’d like to learn more about The Sunrise Movement on campus and the new green deal. I too believe that large corporations need to be limited in order to decrease their carbon footprint.
Peter,
I am inspired by your direct involvement in environmental activism. It helps me breathe a little easier knowing that there are grassroots organizations taking a stand against this climate nightmare. Personally, I once believed that the voice of a few would do little to impact the masses. After all, climate change is a global issue, how could we get everyone on the planet on the same page?… that was my old ideology. Now, I recognize the power of organized protests. As your poster read; “If not us, then who? ” It is up to the people of today to use our platforms to advocate for change. If we can’t change the law as quickly as we would like, we can change mindsets. And it all takes is a stand. Thank you for reinforcing that.
You talk state how capitalism is negatively affecting parts of the planet and then state it is an anti-capitalist mindset. I feel those are two different statements. I would not consider myself part of the social justice movement, but I do believe in security nets and public welfare for ones that need it. I do not however, believe capitalism is bad. Capitalism has been very beneficial in accelerating our world into a very technological state. In truth like most things capitalism is just an idea, and the idea is usually good on paper, bad in practice, much like communism which unlike capitalism is a form of government. I feel it’s important to state capitalism is an economic system that is supposed to be seperate from the government in function. I feel we should not be anti-capitalists, but pro regulation of capitalism. The gilded age was a time in which essentially pure capitalism existed and it went about as well as communism. Unlike communisms intent on caring for the people, capitalisms intent is on caring about profits. If we think about it, capitalism works on a supply and demand bases. That it can have a major effect on the lives of people, but no matter how heavy you regulate the economy, if there is a demand then a supply will be met. Remember a corporation is just a group of people with excess money they invested to meet a demand. To regulate economy heavily, will not make the economy to cease existing, it may however potentially devastate the people. This is when the job of government plays a role. Government should not be bailing out banks and the people at the top, they should not be involved in the business at all. They should bail out the workers who suffer when a business fails. Unfortunately, america’s economy is flimsy because we do not actually produce anything, but we spend a heck of a lot. which makes our economy one of the wealthiest in the world, but not the strongest. We are at the mercy of imports and having money to spend, but if we were able to be self sufficient as we use to be, then when a business fails, it will hurt but not be devastating. We do have a very strong government, but it is not being used to benefit the people, which is its purpose. overall, we should not be anti-capitalist, but pro-government, for the people are the government and we need to take back representation for the people, and not representation for the corporations. That I believe would start by looking to the house of representatives and dismembering the senate.