What is Ecofeminist Literary Criticism? (Weekly Reading Response #4)

This week we read the first half of Greta Gaard and Patrick D. Murphy’s book Ecofeminist Literary Criticism: Theory, Interpretation, Pedagogy. 

Before this reading, I did not completely understand that Ecofeminist literary criticism is a newer aspect of the Ecofeminist philosophical and activist movement.  Each essay serves as an example of or works to further explain Ecofeminist literary criticism, which is difficult to define by virtue of its diversity and lack of central unified theory.  Some critics think this a weak point of the theory; however, I think it is a sign that the theory truly avoids being reductionist.

In the introduction by Gaard and Murphy, they explain what ecofeminist literary criticism seeks to do instead of simply identifying texts as ecofeminist or not:

“it seemed ecofeminist literary criticism would involve reading literary texts through the lens of ecofeminist theory and practice and asking questions: What previously unnoticed elements of a literary text are made visible, or even foregrounded, when one reads from an ecofeminist perspective? Can this perspective tell literary critics anything new about a text in terms of the traditional elements of style and structure, metaphor and narrative, form and content? How might an ecofeminist perspective enhance explorations of connections and differences among “characters” in a text—between humans and animals, between culture and nature, and across human differences of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation?” (7).         

These questions give me an excellent starting point for my Bartram project; I also think they would help anyone new to ecofeminist literary criticism.

 I want to better understand Bartram’s relationship with nature, specifically the animals that he encounters.  What does an eco-feminist lens reveal about a male, Quaker, naturalist explore, in early America, who is bothered by killing animals and even vows never to kill another rattlesnake or crane (which he is served during his travels)?  It seems his compassion and respect for nature is illuminated.  If Bartram, who would have been writing from a minority religious standpoint, saw nature with greater respect than the dominant man the time, then does this show us that despite the prominent land-as-lady (something to be conquered and tilled) metaphor Bartram was resistant to the dominant masculine ideology in his respect for animal life and nature?  Also, in this context…the Bartram killing alligator passage in the Perkins Early American Literary anthology completely misconstrues Bartram’s real character because it is taken out of context.  In fact, selecting this short passage out of an over 300 page nature-appreciating text is actually reflective of the masculine ideology of the editors of the anthology and our culture’s persistent praise for nature dominating behavior.