This week I posted my favorite highlights from our reading, Ecofeminist Literary Criticism: Theory, Interpretation, Pedagogy, and how I think some of these chapters will help me make a case for Bartram as an ecofriendly naturalist who was misrepresented in The American Tradition in Literature Anthology by the Alligator excerpt.
Some Chapters Highlights:
“A Root of Ecofeminism: Ecoféminisme,” by Barbara T. Gates
Gates discusses the origins of ecofeminism and explains that while there is no way to combine the different ecofeminisms into one all-encompassing definition, there are beliefs shared by almost all ecofeminists: “They include the necessity of social transformation by moving beyond power politics and an equivalent necessity for less “management” of the land . . . an appreciation of the intrinisic value of everything in nature—a biocentric rather than an anthropocentric viewpoint; an end to dualisms like male/female, thought/action, and spiritual/natural” (21).
“‘The Women Are Speaking’: Contemporary Literature as Theoretical Critique,” by Patrick D. Murphy
The most important passage to me was the one that explained that ecofeminists are currently tasked with finding a way to collapse patriarchy in a way that supports diversity instead of reinforcing “cultural hierarchies” (36).
A passage that was relevant to my project is the one that discussed nature writing: “The tradition of American nature writing as it has been codified to date remains too much a monocultural monologue about the right ways tii relate to nature from an already alienated position. Such alienation is reinforced particularly in its emphasis on going out to the wilderness areas to experience “nature” through recreational activities or on observing seasonal cycles rather than, say, working on a local farm or feeding oneself through organic gardening . . . this tradition has failed to enter into dialogue with natural diversity as manifested in the plurality of human cultures and represented in the art and literature of native writers and artists” (41-42).
“‘Buffalo Gals, Won’t You Come Out Tonight”: A Call for Boundary-Crossing in Ecofeminist Literary Criticism,” by Karla Armbruster
In my quest to better understand ecofeminism and its cause, I found another passage resembling a definition and wanted to share it: “Central to the ecofeminist agenda is the goal of individual, social, and ideological change—specifically, change that will improve the cultural standing of women and nature” (101).
“Deep Response: An Ecofeminist, Dialogical Approach to Introductory Literature Classrooms” by John Paul Tassoni
Tassoni says that he wants his literature students to want to become ecofeminists of their own accord because they realize that it is better for humans and nonhumans (204).
Some strategies he discusses to use ecofeminist theory to encourage critical and counter-hegemonic discussion in the class are:
He uses a “dialogic pedagogy” to encourage students to break from black/white, right/wrong thinking. He does not push students to find the one “right” answer in discussions. He openly discusses grading criteria and allows students to suggest how their work should be assessed (209). Students are allowed to choose one novel to read and develop the ideas they determine to be important culturally through dialogue.
Tassini outlined ecofeminism for his class: Western civilization, which is opposed to nature, “interacts dialectically with and reinforces the subjugation of women” because they are thought of as linked with nature. Nature is a web; therefore, hierarchies are unnatural and endorse domination of nature. Diversity is needed for survival and reducing everyone culturally will only harm us, like it harms nature. To survive we need to rethink our relationship with nature based on ecofeminist theory. (214-215).
“Hiking without a Map: Reflections on Teaching Ecofeminist Literary Criticism” by Greta Gaard
Gaard discusses and reflects upon different issues of ecofeminist theory that her special topics class worked through. One problem is that when relating to nature and trying to destroy the self/other boundary sometimes the unique identity of the “other” can be lost (236). Also, when looking at the gendering of nature, the class decided that the “contexts of both culture and gender influence” determined if feminizing nature would be oppressive (236). This was interesting because I had mistakenly assumed that a female gendering of nature is always oppressive. Because Gaard refers to Women and Nature by Griffin often, I have decided that I must also read this text.
Closing thought:
The closer I get to understanding the complexities of ecofeminist theory the more I feel our society really needs to hear the messages and address the questions posed by it. I also wonder if I am moving in a productive direction with my Bartram project. It seems the best way to make a change is to examine current texts :(
~Blake
No comments:
Post a Comment