The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education is now available via subscription. Visit About to learn more, meet the editorial board, or learn about the subscriber services.

Dismiss
Show Summary Details

Page of

 PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (education.oxfordre.com). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: null; date: 20 November 2018

Ecofeminism and Education

Summary and Keywords

Ecofeminism is a theoretical, political, and educational movement that draws specific parallels between the domination of women and other marginalized groups, and the degradation of nature. While much of ecofeminist thought is focused on examining the interconnectivity between social and environmental injustices, ecofeminism is as vast and varied as its feminist and ecological roots. Yet, ecofeminism is not without its critics. After being widely accused of essentializing women’s relationship with nature, the term fell out of favor with a lot of scholars in the 1990s. Those who have remained loyal to the term have argued that this was an unfair mischaracterization of the larger foundational ideas within ecofeminist work.

Given the global environmental and social crises currently sweeping the planet, ecofeminism offers important, albeit diverse, theoretical, practical, and pedagogical perspectives for developing effective responses to such interrelated crises. As such, scholars across a variety of disciplines are revisiting (and reclaiming) ecofeminist thought. In the field of education, ecofeminism is influencing the ways that we approach questions of justice by offering an intersectional framework that insists on recognizing the interconnected roots of racism, sexism, poverty, ablism, and other social problems with ecological degradation. An ethics of care is woven throughout to form the basis of a pedagogy of responsibility whereby students learn to both critique these cultural foundations of violence and identify practices and relationships that help to create healthy sustainable communities.

Keywords: gender, ecology, feminism, ecofeminism, logic of domination, value hierarchized thinking, speciesism, ethics of care, environmental education, ecojustice education

Why Ecofeminism? Examining Planetary Crises

The Earth is facing a myriad of cascading crises that are for the most part human created. Climate change caused by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (largely due to the burning of fossil fuels)1 is causing all sorts of calamities including glacial melt and rising sea levels, melting tundra, extreme weather patterns, shifts in insect and animal habitat and behavior, and more. CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been while humans were on the earth resulting in CO2 levels that will affect earth’s climate for the next one hundred thousand years.2 Deforestation and soil loss from hundreds of years of over-logging, overdevelopment, and increasingly industrialized mono-crop agriculture (also possible due to the use of fossil fuels) has diminished wildlife habitat, increased desertification, and is ironically threatening the world’s capacity to equitably provide food. The oceans’ fisheries have declined radically as fishing practices have become more and more mechanized and indiscriminate. The planet is experiencing the first human-caused mass species extinction. Our rivers, lakes, and watersheds are increasingly polluted primarily by industrial waste and a cultural failure to treat water as a sacred resource, leaving human and more-than-human communities around the world with decreasing sources of potable water. The consequences of the Anthropocene age are nearing irreversible tipping points.3

And while the planet changes radically with these crises, human poverty and social degradations of all sorts also increase. Rationalizing market fundamentalism and profit over life, corporations seize the opportunity to buy up what human communities need to live (land, water, even air in places like urban China), and sell it back to us, the consumers. Privatization (or enclosure) of the environmental commons for profit has decreased shared access to what people and all living creatures need to live. These crises are particularly severe in the global south, and those most vulnerable to its effects are women and children. But these intersecting problems are occurring all over the world, even within the dominating nations in Europe, the United States, and Canada, as marginalized groups and other species suffer and struggle to survive. Make no mistake: The world is being impoverished—both socially and ecologically—by greed and a skewed view of what and who matters.

Surely these are issues of urgent interest and responsibility to educators and educational scholars in all contexts as we work to develop community members who can take on these challenges. Environmental education, as both curriculum and pedagogy, has grown in fits and starts within schools and universities since the appearance in 1962 of Rachel Carson’s landmark book Silent Spring.4 While generally the field draws on the physical sciences, social science and the humanities, environmental education has been dominated by a narrow focus on the measureable effects of our industrial system on the planet to the exclusion or marginalization of an analysis of the deep cultural roots of intersecting social and ecological problems. Students learn to measure water and air pollution, soil loss or contamination, habitat loss, climate change, etc., but they rarely learn to analyze these as the result of deeply embedded cultural patterns or connect them to social problems like racism or sexism.

Indeed, critical research within education can be identified as falling along two sides of a divide between questions related to social injustices (racism, sexism, poverty, homophobia, ablism) on the one hand and science-based environmental education on the other. While beyond the scope of this essay, the history of this schism in critical educational theory is important, and connected to the same dualisms that structure the problems we must address. We recognize both the pragmatic and political importance of both movements, even while we seek to undo the division and deepen the analysis of the discursive and ideological foundations of the problems we face. This essay is written explicitly with that commitment.

In the last ten to fifteen years, small groups of scholars across many fields including education have begun to expose and trace the binary structures and logic of domination underlying complex social and ecological problems. Ecojustice education, political ecology education, ecopedagogy, post-humanist education, post-colonial critiques, indigenous studies, land education, critical pedagogy, and place-based education are just a few of the educational fields that pay particular attention to these intersecting problems. And across these approaches feminist theory has made particularly important contributions. This essay looks specifically at the insights provided by feminist scholars5 over the last several decades who address social and ecological problems as these are influencing how we think about them as educators.

Ecofeminism: An Overview of Interconnected Perspectives

Like feminism itself, ecofeminism has been around in both theory and practice for a long time. From fighting against deforestation 300 years ago in the Khejarli village in Jodhpur, Rajasthan to fighting for clean water in Flint, Michigan today, women around the world have often been at the forefront of environmental activism resisting the devastation and destruction to natural resources and their families. Further, gender constructions have long connected women directly to nature through food production and water retrieval. As Vandana Shiva notes, women continue to “produce more than half the world’s food and provide more than 80% of the food needs in food-insecure households and regions.”6 Nevertheless, the specific term “ecofeminism”—or ecological feminism—is frequently cited as being coined in 1974 by Françoise d’Eaubonne in her book, Le féminisme ou la mort.7 Ecofeminism emerged alongside the second-wave feminist and green movements, simultaneously growing out of both the activist and academic movements of the 1970s and 1980s.8

There is a significant body of work within environmental studies that attempts to take a gender neutral or gender blind approach to environmental education, viewing ecofeminism as a subcategory of environmental activism or theory by women, for women. What distinguishes ecofeminism from deep ecology and many other ecological movements, however, is that it draws specific parallels between the domination of women and other marginalized groups, and the degradation of nature. In its fullest forms, ecofeminism is both radically transformative, asserting that all forms of social and ecological violence must be abolished, and conservative in its insistence on supporting economic and social forms that are more ecologically sustainable. Furthermore, the feminist lenses (liberal, radical, socialist, Marxist, postmodern, etc.) used tend to be quite varied. For this reason, there is no single ecofeminism or even a singular field of study associated with ecofeminism.

In educational scholarship, ecofeminism is contributing to a broader and more complex discussion of what we ought to mean by diversity and democracy than has been conceived of traditionally by social justice theorists. Still, it occupies a rather marginalized position in both mainstream multicultural, feminist, and environmental education in spite of its importance in recognizing the role of patriarchy in perpetuating both social and ecological crises. This problem is part of a larger problem in educational scholarship, the narrowing analyses of difference to concerns exclusively belonging to human communities.9 As Annette Gough, Connie Russell, and Hilary Whitehouse have recently argued,

Greater attention to the dynamics of gender in the field [of environmental education]—including intersections with race, class, sexuality, body size, and animality in the contexts of colonization, neoliberalism, globalization and anthropocentrism—is needed if we are to understand and respond effectively to the complex environmental and social issues we face.10

While there is a great deal of diversity of thought within ecofeminism, the overriding consensus most recently is that social and environmental issues are not separate; the causes for the mistreatment of women, people of color, the poor, and the ecosystems that we all depend upon stem from the same cultural roots and resulting systems. Thus, educators drawing on ecofeminist analyses begin from the recognition that we are all unavoidably immersed in complex and interdependent living systems. Any attempt to argue for separateness from or superiority to other species or to particular human groups should be understood as forms of violence that will damage these systems. Social and ecological crises are thus intimately linked via intersecting cultural beliefs and behaviors.

The following definition provided by Greta Gaard highlights the importance of intersectionality within ecofeminism. She states:

Drawing on the insights of ecology, feminism, and socialism, ecofeminism’s basic premise is that the ideology, which authorizes oppressions such as those based on race, class, gender, sexuality, physical abilities, and species is the same ideology that sanctions the oppression of nature. Ecofeminism calls for an end to all oppressions, arguing that no attempt to liberate women (or any other oppressed group) will be successful without an equal attempt to liberate nature. Its theoretical base is a sense of self most commonly expressed by women and various other nondominant groups—a self that is interconnected with all life.11

For Gaard, and many other activists and scholars, ecofeminism should not be treated as a “single-issue” movement because it asserts ecological injustices and social injustices must be addressed together because they reinforce each other. This foundational belief within ecofeminism has had a significant influence on other fields, including the EcoJustice Education framework. Specifically, both share the fundamental belief that justice cannot be achieved for some (human or the more-than-human), unless it is achieved for all—in other words, injustice for some means injustice for all because it signifies underlying hierarchies and dualisms still exist within societal structures.

Women, Others, and Nature

The examination of the interconnectivity between women, people from other marginalized groups, and other species has been at the forefront of ecofeminist theory development. As previously noted, there is no singular perspective central to ecofeminism—much like feminism itself. For many activists and scholars, this diversity of thought was welcomed because it meant that there were many opportunities for feminists to find a home within ecofeminism. Indeed, much of ecofeminism’s diverse perspectives were developed from distinct feminist perspectives: some compatible and overlapping, others conflicting and controversial. Rosemary Radford Ruether captures the overriding goal of ecofeminism and ultimately of educational relationships that draw on its insights:

Ecofeminist hope for an alternative society calls for double conversion or transformation. Social hierarchies of men over women, white elites over subordinated classes and races, need to be transformed into egalitarian societies which recognize the fullness of humanity of each human person. But if greater racial and gender equality is not to be mere tokenism which does not change the deep hierarchies of wealth and power for the few over the many, there must be both a major restructuring of the relation between humans and the non-human world.12

In her landmark book, Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters, Karen Warren13 asserts that there are 10 key philosophical positions and/or issues to emerge from the ecofeminist literature on the interconnections between women, Others, and nature. Warren provides one of the more comprehensive and accessible examinations of varied ecofeminist perspectives; therefore, her work in this area will be used introduce key themes and concepts under the vast umbrella of ecofeminism.

Historical (Typically Causal) Interconnections

Theories generated from this perspective are frequently centered on pinpointing cultural and economic shifts in history that benefited from the domination of women, Others, and nature. There is wide disagreement within ecofeminism (and its critics) as the historical-causal motivations for changes in these relationships (e.g., anthropocentrism versus androcentrism is an example of one such debate). In Women and Nature, Susan Griffin14 examines Plato’s division of spirit and matter as well as the emergence of Christianity and Western philosophy as pivotal moments of separation. Riane Eisler’s The Chalice and The Blade15 examines the “dominator model, in which patriarchal religions replaced earth-based goddess spiritualties, and that the idea of human separateness was forced on entire cultures (whose members were, not coincidentally, darker-skinned than the dominators).”16 Val Plumwood, on the other hand, argues that classical Greek philosophy and the rationalist tradition embeds separation from nature as a form of reason because such separations are a source of dominance and privilege. In Environmental Culture: The Crisis of Reason, Plumwood states,

The classical rationalist tradition, as we have seen, holds reason to be the supreme good in and the supreme force driving the universe, and sees human reason or intellect as the only proper basis of human knowledge and human culture. Reason, coded as male, maintains itself in a precarious and hostile relationship with the corrupted world of “nature,” thought of as the domain of emotionality, the senses, and the sphere of biological changes, of “coming to be and passing away.” In this form nature, the body and the biological “world of changes” were associated with women and other lower groups such as slaves and “barbarians” or non-Greeks, in contrast to a strongly separate, higher realm of reason, ideas, and “spirit” associated with elite, Greek men.17

In The Death of the Nature (1980), an important and influential contribution to early ecofeminist literature, Carolyn Merchant focuses her examination on the scientific revolution in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as an economically, culturally, and scientifically transformative time. She argues that these shifts brought consequences for both women and nature because the “. . . image of an organic cosmos with a living female earth at its center gave way to a mechanistic worldview in which nature was reconstructed as dead and passive, to be dominated and controlled by humans.”18 The mechanistic root metaphor detached and isolated nature from human life. Martusewicz, Edmundson, and Lupinacci illustrate how the mechanism metaphor when applied to farming disrupts the various relationships between humans, animals, and land:

For example, when a farm is seen through the machine metaphor, the farmer’s focus is on what inputs and techniques will produce the most food, rather than on understanding and caring for the land—the soil, plants and animals as well as the humans—as living interdependent relationships. When ‘the farm’ is thought of as “a factory” we lose the understanding and appreciation for the connections that our bodies have with the bodies of other living creatures; we lose the understanding of the sacredness of that connection and its necessity to the life cycle.19

Conceptual Interconnections

One of the most prominent assertions in ecofeminist literature is the contention that interconnections between woman–Others–nature oppressions are fundamentally conceptual. According to Warren, “Underlying eco-feminism is the view that, whether we know it or not, each of us operates out of a socially constructed mindset or conceptual framework, i.e., a set of beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions which shape, reflect, and explain our view of ourselves and our world”20 While the research is varied as to how such oppressive conceptual structures are constructed and the effects of such constructions, there are several key discussions under this perspective. Warren21 groups these conceptions into three subcategories: value dualisms and value hierarchies; logic of domination; and sex-gender (or sex-body) differences.

Value Dualisms and Value Hierarchies

Value dualisms rely on binary distinctions to organize conceptual frameworks of domination. Dualistic pairs—e.g., human/nature, man/woman, reason/emotion—are exclusive and oppositional, and hierarchies are created because greater value is given to one over the other.22 Plumwood suggests, “Dualism and rationalism function together as a system of ideas that justifies and naturalizes domination of people and events by a privileged class identified with reason, who deserve to be in control and to be disproportionately rewarded.”23

Logic of Domination

A common misunderstanding of value-hierarchical thinking and value dualisms is that ecofeminists dismiss all hierarchical organization. However, as Warren notes,

The problem is not simply that value-hierarchical thinking and value dualisms are used, but the way in which each has been used in oppressive conceptual frameworks to establish inferiority and to justify subordination. It is the logic of domination, coupled with value-hierarchical thinking and value dualisms, which “justifies” subordination.24

In other words, the problem is that these conceptions work together to foster beliefs of superiority/supremacy that create and validate oppressive conceptual frameworks. Value dualisms and value hierarchies tend to foster a logic of a domination that “explains, justifies, and maintains the subordination of an ‘inferior’ group by a ‘superior’ group on the grounds of the (alleged) inferiority or superiority of the respective group.”25 The influence of the logic of domination on our perceptions of up-down organization serves to legitimize inequality, rather than seeing the two groups as simply representing diversity.26

For ecofeminists, the patriarchal conceptual framework is the primary oppressive structure in women-Others-nature connections, but it also exists alongside and in support of other oppressive frameworks. Therefore, for most ecofeminists, any logic of domination used to justify exploitation of humans and more-than-humans must be eliminated.

Sex-Gender Differences

The third conceptual interconnections are sex/body differences often related to reproduction that could situate women’s experiences with nature differently. According to Warren,

The claim is that female bodily experiences (e.g., of reproduction and child-bearing), not female biology per se, situate women differently with respect to nature than men. This sex-gender difference is (allegedly) revealed in a different consciousness in women than men toward nature; it is rooted conceptually in “paradigms that are uncritically oriented to the dominant western masculine forms of experiencing the world: the analytic, non-related, delightfully called ‘objective’ or ‘scientific’ approaches” (Salleh, 1988, p. 130)—just those value dualisms that are claimed to separate and inferiorize what is historically female-gender identified. These socio-psychological factors provide a conceptual link insofar as they are embedded in different conceptualization structures and strategies (“different ways of knowing”), coping strategies and ways of relating to nature for women and men. A goal of ecofeminism then, is to develop gender-sensitive language, theory, and practices that do not further the exploitative experiences and habits of dissociated, male-gender identified culture toward women and nature.27

Empirical Interconnections

Activist and scholarly work in this area seeks to examine the relationship between marginalized groups with environmental degradation. The global reach of neoliberal political economic structures unrelentingly produces new environmental harms and compound existing ones with reckless indifference to the physical, emotional, and economic suffering forced onto the voiceless. As Warren28 states, any work in this area (inside and outside of ecofeminism) that fails to empirically link woman-Others-nature interconnections is grossly inadequate. This could be in the form of studies on the disproportionate effects of lead exposure, pesticides or other toxins in marginalized groups or could be in the link to practices or policies, such as the similarities between animal and human slavery. Adams’ The Sexual Politics of Meat,29 Spiegel’s The Dreaded Comparison,30 and Gaard’s anthology, Ecofeminism: Women, Animals, Nature31 are just a few works by ecofeminists that examine woman-nature oppressions as anthropocentric and androcentric and tied to patriarchal capitalism.

Empirical research demonstrating woman-Others-nature interconnections between patriarchal capitalism and increased vulnerabilities to environmental harms is woefully abundant within ecofeminist scholarship. Less common is how such interconnections are understood within the realm of environmental education.32 Scholarly research may attempt to understand how gender, race, sexuality, and ableism may influence environmental educational outcomes, or how classroom structures and pedagogies reinforce the dominating narratives; however, the ecofeminist critique points to the overall paucity in research that attempts to understand these as intertwined and symptomatic of larger oppressive structures.33 This is not to downplay the work being conducted in this area. Important contributions have been in areas such as teacher education to develop pedagogical frameworks from an ecofeminist lens.34 Others are utilizing the EcoJustice Education framework to work directly with educators and community activists to address the interconnectivity of social and ecological violence and build stewardship.35

With regard to speciesism, for example, empirical research within environmental education highlights that thoughtful pedagogy aimed at addressing the more-than-human has enormous potential for disrupting interconnected oppressive patterns. As Piersol and Timmerman note, “an ecofeminist lens helps to identify an ongoing challenge: the pervasiveness of anthropocentric tendencies to devalue and/or ignore the more-than-human voices/concerns, even in environmental education.”36 In environmental education, the more-than-human remind us of our own animality and carries possibilities for “learning from and with other animals” in our own practices.37 This can be in the form of direct connections through place-based learning opportunities or classroom pedagogical approaches (e.g., storytelling, poetry, art) designed to draw on experiences and relationships to foster empathic identification with the more-than-human. For example, Fawcett38 suggests having students establish a more-than-human relationship of their choice through ongoing observations and journaling. According to Fawcett, “by enlarging our direct experiences of other lives and other worlds we deepen our collective ethical imaginations.”39 Such work supports Haraway’s40 conclusion that respect, curiosity, and knowledge are formed from these relationships creating a pathway to combat speciesism and anthropocentrism.41 Yet, to be successful, it is important that such pedagogical practices are not treated as isolated activities. As Harvester & Blenkinsop note,

ecofeminist pedagogy calls for a radical relational shift in education: a shift towards something that is more dialogical, where the human (teacher and student), the community, and the more-than-human come together and engage with each other in more robust and equitable ways than is currently the norm.42

Socioeconomic Interconnections

Research and activism on socioeconomic interconnections frequently critique capitalist patriarchal systems for disadvantaging women and Others, and for exploiting and contaminating natural resources. Some ecofeminists contend that the concept of labor in capitalist systems is constructed differently for women and men, particularly in regards to nature. Women’s labor inside the home has centered on care and maintenance that “serve to ‘bridge’ men and nature” and outside the home as producers of specific goods (farmers, potters, textile manufacturers, etc.).43 Vandana Shiva’s contribution to socioeconomic interconnections has been particularly important to ecofeminism’s understanding of women’s work and knowledge around the world. In Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Survival in India,44 Shiva’s examination of post-colonial economic development occurring in third-world countries have been marketed as opportunities for freedom to indigenous peoples; yet, she argues that “maldevelopment” is a more accurate reflection of what is happening. Shiva states,

Development was thus reduced to a continuation of the process of colonisation; it became an extension of the project of wealth creation in modern western patriarchy’s economic vision, which was based on the exploitation or exclusion of women (of the west and non-west), on the exploitation and degradation of nature, and on the exploitation and erosion of other cultures. “Development” could not but entail destruction for women, nature and subjugated cultures, which is why, throughout the Third World, women, peasants and tribals are struggling for liberation from “development” just as they earlier struggled for liberation from colonisation.45

Shiva contends indigenous women “lose even more because they are the main providers of food, water, and fuel. At the same time, they have almost no access to their land, or to technology, paid employment, or small business loans.”46 Globalization has been an especially destructive force to women, Others, and nature and it begins by turning them into resources. In certain parts of the world, the consequences of oppressive neoliberal economic and political policies are hidden and protected from scrutiny through misdirection and widespread promotion of inaccuracies. For example, Warren argues,

Colonization and not overpopulation is the cause of poverty in the Third World. Land which formerly supported local subsistence has been appropriated by imperialist countries to produce export crops for the First World. Since much of the land is going to produce export crops rather than crops to meet local needs, people in the Third World find themselves increasingly relying upon imports. The money they spend on imports is more than they make from selling export crops.47

Overpopulation is just one of many consequences to emerge from these economic policies because it is in the economic interest for women to bare more children to meet farming demands.48 Climate-related events and disasters at the hands of globalization often disproportionately impact women including death rates, health and education access, and family relations.49 Additionally, there are lasting social, economic, and environmental consequences to the widespread displacement from land and destruction of land that seems so common with neoliberal economic policies. As Nhanenge asserts, “When indigenous people lose their environments, they lose not only their livelihoods but also their culture, history, and identity, all of which relate to their environment.”50

Noel Sturgeon51 has also examined ecofeminist analyses of development in transnational environmental politics and is critical of what she views as the privileging of “international difference” in U.S. ecofeminist discourse on racial and cultural diversity instead of U.S. racial categories of difference.

Within U.S. ecofeminist organization, conferences, and writing, because the non-U.S. women who are used to construct “international” diversity within ecofeminism are often either of a privileged class in their home countries or are reductively constituted as “indigenous” women, “internationalism,” as a U.S.-based discourse of cultural diversity, often elides important differences of class, caste, education language, or culture that may be very pertinent within the home countries of non-U.S. women . . . And in conflating U.S. racism with U.S. neo-colonialism, U.S. ecofeminists are impeded in offering a politically relevant, materially grounded analysis of the interaction between the two in the creation of environmental problems, whether they are seen as “local” or “global.”52

Warning against the essentializing tendencies within U.S. scholarship that define “indigenous” women as the most victimized by colonial and capitalist practices, Sturgeon debunks tendencies within the field that imply women’s inherent proximity to nature, while refusing to tag all ecofeminist work as “essentializing” (see below for more on this debate). Recognizing the importance intersection of racism, sexism, impoverishment and globalization, she traces the historical development of international activism led by women against transnational corporate dispossession especially among agricultural communities.

The Green Belt movement led by Kenyan activist Wangari Mathai is one such example. A biological scientist educated in Nairobi and the U.S. Mathai worked to address deforestation in Africa by organizing rural women in a tree-planting movement.53 The Green Belt movement grew to also include addressing sustainable agriculture, water and land rights. “Local people are taught sustainable agriculture with an emphasis on restoration of traditional food crops, such as yams, for direct consumption, rather than exotic cash crops for export, crops for which Kenyan farmers are often exploited without receiving the promised payment.”54

Latin American ecofeminist Ivone Gebara, also aware of criticisms of ecofeminism as having the potential to essentialize women as closer to nature, works against such ideological traps by actively addressing intersections among women, poverty, and environmental degradation created within modern development schemes in Brazil and more broadly across the world via globalized capitalism. Drawing from what she identifies as ecofeminist theology influenced by Thomas Berry and Brian Swimme, Gebara, as with other feminist scholars and activists, analyzes the connections among patriarchy, capitalism and the degradation of both human and more-than-human communities. Focusing on women’s embodied experiences, she locates trauma within specific systems of power and violence, and seeks patterns of restorative interconnectivity within natural systems of bio-diversity. According to Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gerbara’s “writings and workshops have helped created a network of women and men throughout Latin America” addressing a range of issues including the worldviews of Latin American indigenous women, human rights, the understanding and experience of the body, socio-economic violence, and more.55

Socio-Symbolic and Linguistic Interconnections

Ecofeminist scholarship that explores the role of language in shaping normalized beliefs and behaviors about oneself and others is extremely important in making visible a logic of domination. Interconnections of discursively produced value hierarchies that produce social and ecological degradation are clear in the many ways metaphors related to animals or nature are used to describe women as well as other marginalized groups. Women are described as cows, chicks, dogs, cats, etc.—they’re wild animals that need to be captured, tamed, or broken in. By the same token, nature is regularly feminized and sexualized. “Mother Earth” is simultaneously revered for her reproductive bounties and demonized for being temperamental and punitive. Her fertile land is raped, plundered, conquered, and mined until she is barren or sterile. Ecofeminists suggest that it is imperative that these linguistic associations are not dismissed. The concept “Othering” is used to refer to the analogical ways women, people of color and other species are inferiorized via hierarchized dualisms. The process is analogical because the inferiorized terms become metaphors for one another. For example, consider again the following value hierarchized pairs discussed above:

culture/nature

man/woman

mind/ body

reason/emotion

civilized/uncivilized

If one compares the terms on either side—for example culture, man, mind, reason, civilized—their analogic function with each other becomes clear. What makes man superior and rationalizes his ability to dominate other humans as well as nature is his capacity for reason, to be the One with mind, who creates culture, and is thus the purveyor of civilization. Thus, supremacy discourse is created via the weaving together of these metaphors to define what it means to be a man (especially a white man) and the same process can be seen as it works to create naturalized inferiority for women, for those cultures deemed “uncivilized” and for other species, homogenized into the category “nature.” Such discursive codes function within our political, economic and educational institutions as well as our day to day relationships as if they are truths. They work to create our identities, and our basic expectations of what we can or cannot say or do in and to the world.

Scholarship in linguistic interconnections has been particularly useful in analyzing the ways that human supremacy discourses work to “other” animals as a foundation for other oppressive definitions. Gruen, for example, argues “The categories ‘woman’ and ‘animal’ serve the same symbolic function in patriarchal society. Their construction as dominated, submissive ‘other’ in theoretical discourse (whether explicitly so stated or implied) has sustained human male dominance.”56 Adams analyzes the ways that specific metaphoric connections between animals and women creates ideologies that merge with ontology. She states,

Ontology recapitulates ideology. In other words, ideology creates what appears to be ontological: if women are ontologized as sexual beings (or rapeable, as some feminists argue), animals are ontologized as carriers of meat. In ontologizing women and animals as objects, our language simultaneously eliminates the fact that someone else is acting as a subject/agent/perpetrator of violence.57

Further, people of color have historically been defined ontologically as inferior due for their likeness to animals, a discursive process used to rationalize slavery and still heard in popular culture today.58 Looking closely at the root metaphors at work, one can see that such a process relies first on the discursive inferiorization of animals and the natural world. Thus, we see the intersecting weave of analogies that create supremacy discourses and function to keep in place specific naturalized relationships of power and subordination. Ecofeminists who draw on post-structuralist and other linguistic theories untangle these problematic representations in ways that expose their violent effects across human and more than human communities.

Educational scholars who take such analyses seriously work to expose the ways schools and other ideological institutions are used in the service of domination across human and more than human communities.59 When teachers are exposed to broad cultural ecological analyses, they are offered tools to work with students at a variety of levels in considering how cultural, economic, and social systems are created via our complex meaning systems. They learn how domination is normalized through language, and thus how to challenge such systems by beginning to identify and internalize different metaphoric and discursive systems counter to supremacy discourses. This work is facilitated through the use of literature and other textual sources as we’ll discuss in the next section.

Literary Interconnections

Examination of art, literature, and media often reveals the persistent devaluation of women-Others-nature interconnections or the lack of representation altogether. Gretchen Legler argues that ecofeminist literary criticism can “engage in the process of revisioning human relationships with the natural world by raising awareness about a whole range of alternative stories about landscape and the natural world that have heretofore been ignored as ‘nature writing.’”60 For Linda Vance, the lack of visibility of oppressed groups is both purposeful and harmful. She states,

The lives of women, of working-class people, of people of color, have thus been rendered invisible not by historical accident but by design. We are real only insofar as we are useful objects; our lives are inconsequential, our experiences uninteresting. They do not count. They are unreal. They are untrue. At the same time, the lives and experiences of those who do count are imposed upon the rest of us as “reality.”61

Additionally, Patrick Murphy, who has been central to the emergence of ecofeminist literary criticism, calls for a broader commitment to bring “nonhuman actors and characters into prominence alongside the human ones from every ethnicity and nationality.”62 Doing so gives voice to the silenced while also encouraging transformative action for greater representation of oppressed groups. The use of storytelling and dialogue from an ecofeminist perspective provided environmental educators, Laura Piersol and Nora Timmerman, an opportunity to “shift conventional ways of perceiving knowledge production in educational contexts to now position it as a collective endeavor that finds its strength in a diversity of perspectives and contexts.”63 Similarly, Leesa Fawcett64 considers how we might “tell stories that acknowledge other beings as subjects of lives that we share, lives that intersect and are interdependent in profound ways?” How might we incorporate narrative into our teaching in ways that “ensure that these “other” voices are audible and that we co-author environmental stories to live, teach, and learn by?” In the classroom, storytelling becomes a powerful tool for writers/speakers, teachers/learners to reimagine relationships by situating “ourselves within our own personal subjectivity, uncovering and embracing the ways identity is shaped by the more-than-human, race, class, location, ability, religion, and other context-specific experience.”65

Using fiction, poetry and other narrative forms that directly address these challenging socioecological concerns is one way that teachers across age groups can offer students access to ways of thinking and imagination that disrupts taken for granted ways of seeing and being. In her book, Teaching for EcoJustice, Rita Turner offers examples of lessons where “through poetry, short stories, essays, and visual art, students are presented with examples of important encounters between between humans and the natural world . . .”66 And Erin Stanley’s67 reading of Hannah Coulter a novel by Wendell Berry (2004) and The Dollmaker by Harriett Arnow (1954), demonstrates how fictional characters can become our teachers in both analyzing the destructive nature of industrialized culture, as well as the social relationships and connections to the land that could restore balance and well-being to our communities. These are just a few examples of the power of literary texts in pedagogically addressing the concerns raised by ecofeminists.

Spiritual and Religious Interconnections

Ecofeminist scholarship on spiritual and religious interconnections frequently exists on two fronts: The first takes a critical look at how these connections are located in existing religions and theological works (e.g., the creation and/or support of dualisms) and the second seeks to establish new spiritualities that draw from these connections. In regards to the latter, “. . . ecofeminist spiritualities symbolize personal power and empowerment. However, they also express interpersonal and political power.”68 Spirituality is positioned outside of science, and even within ecofeminism, its relevance is frequently diminished. According to Plumwood, there is a “definitional dilemma for appeals to spirituality” because attempts at inclusivity would bring with it spiritualities that have been “deeply damaging and antipathetic to the earth and its systems of life.”69 Yet, Nhanenge urges ecofeminists to consider its potential for change, stating:

However, if we admit that the reductionist, scientific worldview has failed to create healthy societies, we may try alternative methods . . . Thus instead of reducing reality to quantitative elements only, we may try to become more holistic. We may combine science with metaphysics, parts with wholes, quantity with quality, masculine with feminine, and yang with yin. The results are likely to be harmonious. Hence, if we work towards a more integrated and systemic worldview, and towards more healthy social and natural environments, ecofeminist spiritualities are important in their creation.70

Rosemary Radford Ruether71 looks across cultures from North America to Africa, Latin America, and India, to survey a diversity of ecofeminist spiritualities, each one land based in its own particular way. Her exploration begins with the work of neo-paganist ecofeminist Starhawk whose visions of a new society on “the myth of an original matricentric society that preexisted in human evolution” where no hierarchy existed between men and women, and life was based on a sense of the divine as “the immanent life force that animates all reality, linking all humans with one another and with the nonhuman world.”72 Starhawk’s goddess-based spiritual, activist, therapeutic and educational work seeks to recover the “power within” that emanates from this life force and could help women and other oppressed people to overcome the powerlessness imposed by patriarchy. With this, she argues, we must reclaim our place in nature, thus affirming our sacred connection with all of life-giving energies.

As mentioned earlier, along with some other ecofeminist scholars, Starhawk has been critiqued for reproducing what some see as an essentializing form of feminism, by claiming a universal matrilineal power that connects women in particular to nature. But her work to reconnect not just women but all humans back to a responsible and active relationship with living systems, to re-indigenize those in Western culture who have been separated from this natural connection in the places where they live, puts her work in common with other ecofeminists in traditional land-based cultures. Radford Reuther looks at the work of Zimbabwean scholar Tumani Mutasa Nyajeka as seeking to reclaim precolonial cultural values of the Shona people. “Shona culture seeks to balance the interconnection among humans and animals, aquatic and terrestrial, men and women, the old and the young, the dead and the living, earth and sky in mutual relation.”73 Taking a similar analysis to Latin American and Indian ecofeminisms with diverse but similar desires to bring us back to the land, water and other species as part of our sacred responsibility and potential for life itself, Radford Ruether argues that each of these offer a critique of the damages done by Western culture’s logic of domination and mechanistic hyper-separation from the natural world. One could add to her study, any number of North American Indigenous Peoples’ traditions as well to examine the ways knowledge, spirituality, and education occupy inseparable relationships that are useful to an ecofeminist analysis.74

While it is tricky to discuss how those of us in Western industrial cultures should treat such diverse knowledge from other cultures (clearly it cannot be about simply incorporating such ancient place-based knowledge as our own), at the very least, asking our students to explore other ways of knowing from a variety of cultures helps to disrupt the cultural blindspots of our Western ways of being and knowing. Sharing ideas and stories from other cultures helps students to understand others who have “an intimate understanding of the relationships between humans and the ecosystem, and of the need to maintain this balance.”75 Ecofeminists from around the world are clearly sharing important aspects of this work.

Epistemological Interconnections

Since ecofeminism is a feminism, it is common to find the influence of leading versions of feminism (liberal, Marxist, radical, sociologist, etc.) shaping ecofeminist epistemologies.76 At the heart of all feminist research, according to Gough, has been “the question of epistemological claims, such as who can be an agent of knowledge, what counts as knowledge, what constitutes and validates knowledge, and what the relationship should be between knowing and being.”77 Yet, ecofeminists argue that it is necessary to go beyond questioning patriarchal knowledge structures, to specifically centralize the interconnections of women-Others-nature in feminist research methodologies and epistemologies. For example, the degradation of nature is not at the forefront of feminist theory nor has the oppression of women and Others been at the forefront of environmental theory. In response to these critiques, Warren78 has called for an integrative and transformative feminist theory that addresses these issues by keeping the focus on women-Others-nature interconnections.

As pointed out in the early pages of this essay, a common ecofeminist critique within environmental education is that women continue to be largely ignored in the epistemological framework and subsequently the curriculum and research content derived from it.79 (Eco)feminist poststructuralism provides a critical approach to challenging positivistic knowledge-making and narrow conceptions of agency.80 For Plumwood81, effective ecofeminist epistemologies must demand better ways of knowing, acknowledging that current knowledge structures are not detached and objective even though they are often presented as such under rationalism. Disembodied scientific objectivity is an illusion.82 As Martusewicz et al., note, “Understanding the ways we depend on language to understand the world disrupts Western myths of objectivity and subjectivity associated with knowledge.”83

The following highlights the importance for a better way of knowing within ecofeminism to challenge rationalist-influenced knowledge and thus education. As we laid out in the discussion of spirituality above, this perspective attempts to foster inclusion of or at least exposure to traditional ways of knowing from indigenous peoples.

The focus ecofeminists have on context, narratives, and situated knowledge gives a renewed access to the discourse of traditional cultures. Their mythical images are able to locate us in a moral space, which is also the space where we live physically. Thus, morality becomes the lived reality of facts. In tribal communities, nature is often included in the moral population. The land speaks to people and vice versa. Both shape the interaction. Each defines the other. These tales are not universal truth, but they are local truth. It may be the voices of multiple women deconstructing the totalizing and domineering patriarchal discourse. Those stories are important for the deconstructing process.84

Political Interconnections

In What is Ecofeminist Political Philosophy? Gender, Nature, and the Political, Chaone Mallory defines ecofeminist political philosophy as:

intellectual inquiry that examines the political status of that which we call “nature” using the insights, theoretical tools, and ethical commitments of ecological feminisms and other liberatory theories such as critical race theory, queer theory, postcolonial theory, environmental philosophy, and feminism. It is the principal tenet of all ecofeminisms that varieties of oppression, especially but not exclusively the oppression of women and nature, are interconnected, and that these intersections of oppressions manifest on both material in conceptual levels.85

Sherilyn MacGregor furthers this definition by noting that ecofeminism is at its root, “a politics of citizenship that is about democratic deliberation and self-questioning, a commitment to the ideal of coming together as equals to produce a common world beyond private human identities, interests, and needs.”86 Indeed, ecofeminism has always been a political movement that has demanded action and change from both its academic and activist branches. Early ecofeminism focused heavily on repositioning women to the center of environmental movements before shifting to a greater focus on “redressing interrelated ecological, economic, and social problems ensuing from capitalistic globalization.”87 This shift in focus strengthened and reaffirmed ecofeminism’s mutual relationship between its academic and activist branches in women-Others-nature interconnections. For example, the knowledge and lessons shared by indigenous women environmental activists is a necessary element to informing ecofeminist theory as well as a source for political organization. According to Sturgeon,88

Ecofeminism has been an important international political location at the intersection of environmentalism and feminism, which has become a globalized space for political demands by women in many countries who might not otherwise have had a voice or an opportunity to create coalitions.89

Furthermore, much of the philosophical development in the academic sphere has directly supported and guided ecofeminist political movements because any attempts for positive change would likely be temporary unless more was done at the conceptual level to address value hierarchies. Marginalized groups are particularly vulnerable to oppressive economic structures. This becomes especially apparent following severe weather events (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) or other environmental disasters that often disproportionately affect already vulnerable groups, thus further widening social and political inequalities.90

Deconstructing oppressive social, economic, and political systems is central to ecofeminism; yet, the specific action to be taken is often connected to the epistemological influences shaping the ideas. While some educational scholars have called for the incorporation of ecofeminism into the environmental education movement,91 it should be noted that the general failure to recognize the role of gender in traditional environmental epistemological frameworks is both common and problematic, part of a larger patriarchal approach to knowledge. Ironically, it likely works against effective environmental political action. Specifically, such frameworks discount the significance of the historical and cross-cultural roots of female-led environmental socio-political activism; furthermore, there is growing evidence within environmental education that gender influences a willingness to act environmentally.92 Noting the influence of such research findings to traditional educational programs, Sakellari and Skanavis argue “Environmental Education theorists and practitioners would be in a better position trying to empower environmental behavior and inspire women from all race and class backgrounds to engage in effective ecological and political action.”93

A relatively new field known as political ecology of education offers a set of tools for understanding such exclusions and power dynamic in educational practice and scholarship. This approach aims to introduce educational scholars to the multifaceted interactions between humans and the environment specifically in educational policies, spaces, and relations. Teresa Lloro-Bidart argues for an ecofeminist informed approach in order to disrupt the persistent male dominance and human-centeredness of American formal education, in particular within science education. Such an approach she writes “(1) examines how the kinds of human-nature relationships perpetuated in educational spaces are the result of complex and scaled political factors and (2) questions and reimagines human-nature divides reified in educational practice and research.”94

Ethical Interconnections

The central question that ethics seeks to address is well-being.95 Yet, traditional approaches to ethics is dominated by rationalist thinking that is both anthropocentric and androcentric.96 As Cuomo notes, it is important to understand “whose well-being is available for and worthy of consideration, a question born from the sense that considering only the interests of rational human beings does not attend to everything valuable in the world.”97 Further, Plumwood challenges a conception of rationalism based on the hyper-separation of humans from the world of other species with whom they are dependent. As a result, ecofeminist scholarship in this area insists that a feminist ethical analysis of nature is necessary. Warren and Cheney contend, “ecofeminism complexifies the variety of ways in which ethics is conceived and practiced, in which humans may be in relationship with others (including the nonhuman natural environment), and in which human-nature, women-nature connections may be described.”98 They further maintain that moral issues within ecofeminist ethics incorporate “. . . values often lost or overlooked in mainstream ethics (e.g., values of care, love, friendship, diversity, appropriate reciprocity) in the context of human-nonhuman relationships”99 As Cuomo states,

. . . a defining feature of ecological feminist thought is its commitment to the flourishing or well-being, of individuals, species, and communities. Despite the absence of explicit discussions of flourishing, commitment to the well-being of moral objects is the basis upon which oppression, degradation, and other forms of harm and manipulation are rejected by feminism and ecofeminism.100

Flourishing can only happen when women and the other Others are viewed as “full moral agents.”101 It should be noted, however, that extending rights to animals and plants is a deeply controversial aspect within ecofeminist ethics.102

However, an ecofeminist ethics of care bases its approach not on rights but rather on the nurturing effects of relationships based on mutual care, responsibility, generosity, and humility. As Lawson points out care ethics begins from a social ontology of connection, the idea that we become human only in our relationships with each other and with the larger living world. Such a recognition requires that we also see the ways value hierarchies continue to devalue such work and those who are most responsible for the care of others: “In sum, what is most important is that care ethics suggests different ways of theorizing politics . . . We are all profoundly interdependent, and yet not all equally burdened with the work of care.”103 Women’s work has historically been the work of care and subsistence worldwide—for children, for elders, for the land, for water—and yet this is work most undervalued and exploited.104 An ecofeminist analysis recognizes care work as that which is most needed to stem the tide of ecological disaster and social disintegration, not just by women but in our communities overall. While women have been doing it and will continue to do it, skills and identities related to care must be developed across race, class, and gendered boundaries and across educational contexts. “In the most contradictory hopefulness, we are in interdependent relationships, and we do know how to love, how to take care of one another, how to give aid,”105 even if we do not yet recognize these as essential forms of knowledge or practice.

Reflecting on important lessons learned from her mother, from Indigenous elders, and Detroit activists, Martusewicz challenges educators to embrace this essential responsibility in a letter to educational ethics of care philosopher, Nel Noddings:

I wonder what it would mean to seek an ethic of care in the wisdom of those we have been taught to see as “primitive” or “inferior,” not as a matter of “going native” but rather as a matter of educating ourselves about the limits of our own cultural assumptions and the richness of our relationships with the more than human world . . . I have spent hours and hours learning what happens when people come together in love and kindness and tenacity, facing down food insecurity by creating gorgeous gardens on abandoned lots, feeding their families and their neighbors . . . I have listened as a young Chicano boy delights in telling me all about where the pheasants and coyotes and foxes live--how much he hopes for their survival . . . This ethic of care is about community writ large, inclusive of all living relationships needed to keep the planet and ourselves flourishing.106

Such an ethic of care is learned when we ask our students and ourselves to challenge those ways of being assumed to be natural but actually causing violence and harm across the world, and to begin to replace those harmful assumptions with responsibility, humility, and direct action that aids others. These are values that are all around us if we only open ourselves to them as essential to life itself. As one of its core tenets, ecofeminism “makes a central place for values of care, love, friendship, trust, and appropriate reciprocity.”107

Critiques of Ecofeminism

As this paper has attempted to demonstrate, the origin of the interconnectivity between women and nature has been assessed from a variety of perspectives. However, one particular perspective has been particularly controversial within ecofeminism: the assertion by some spiritual ecofeminists that women are more earth-connected than men. By epistemologically privileging women with a universal relationship or experience with nature, this form of ecofeminism is critiqued for its hierarchical arrangement of the woman-nature connection. As mentioned in two sections above, it is widely dismissed as a form of gender essentialism—both within and outside of ecofeminism—because it seemingly asserts that there are inherent differences between men and women, providing further justification for women’s subordination and oppression. Karen Warren notes that within ecofeminism there is concern with viewpoints attempting to assert that some group of humans are closer to nature. Such a position is “. . . conceptually flawed and methodologically suspect because it maintains dualistic and hierarchical thinking that is critiqued by ecofeminism.”108

The argument that women are biologically or spiritually closer to nature than men did not represent the primary arm of ecofeminist thought at the time most of these criticisms were being levied; yet, the anti-essentialism critique quickly extended to work that addressed experientially constructed differences, effectively silencing diversity of discussion. As Ariel Salleh notes, the label of “essentialist” was frequently misused. She states, “To examine ‘specificity’ however, is not necessarily to write ahistorically; nor to create false universals; nor to ignore cross-cultural variability; nor even lapse of biologism.”109 Additionally, Gaard argues that the rise of “animal” ecofeminism in the 1990s may have a played an important role in the increasing accusations of essentialism. Gaard maintains that clear distinctions and typologies of ecofeminism had already addressed the issue of essentialism. However, as speciesism was brought into the foreground of ecofeminist analyses as another form of oppression with reinforcing oppressive structures, Gaard asserts, “. . . charges of essentialism soon dominated the critiques and became the leading edge of the anti-ecofeminism backlash.”110

The anti-essentialism critique took hold and was seemingly applied to all ecofeminisms, leading to its widespread dismissal. For some feminist scholars utilizing a constructionist perspective, nature and the natural became foundationally essentialist, making some feminists “hesitant to investigate nature from a feminist perspective.”111 As a result, some scholars abandoned ecofeminism altogether, and others tried to distance themselves from the backlash and/or rebrand themselves by embracing alternative labels that connected feminism and environmentalism. As Gaard states, the impact of this critique was notable:

Focusing on the celebration of goddess spirituality and the critique of patriarchy advanced in cultural ecofeminism, poststructuralist and other third-wave feminisms portrayed all ecofeminism as an exclusively essentialist equation of women with nature, discrediting ecofeminism’s diversity of arguments and standpoints to such an extent that, by 2010, it was nearly impossible to find a single essay, much less a section, devoted to issues of feminism and ecology (and certainly not ecofeminism), species, or nature in most introductory anthologies used in women’s studies, gender studies, or queer studies.112

Conclusion

Clearly, as our survey indicates, ecofeminism did not die with the backlash; it can be seen in the recent works of its pioneers, promising new voices, and the numerous fields influenced by the its interconnected frameworks. While it has had its critics, and current work may not as readily name itself “ecofeminist,” ecofeminism’s continued contribution to feminism, ecology and education remains significant.

Gender, sexuality, people of color, indigenous peoples, and other Others remain in the margins of environmental education scholarship, but this does not negate the significance of the work being generated in these areas as it is being taken up by education scholars. EcoJustice Education, for example, a model for teacher education, integrates the interconnected aspects of ecofeminist work throughout its framework. The three main strands introduce teachers and their students to (a) a cultural ecological analysis of discursively created modernist assumptions damaging both human and more than human communities, (b) an ethic of care as it is expressed within diverse cultural and ecological commons, and (c) pedagogies of responsibility that require the engagement of imagination in place, as the source of epistemological, ontological and spiritual shifts needed to transform our relationships to each other and the natural world.113 As discussed throughout this essay, other related approaches are offering similar critiques and openings for educators beyond traditional environmental education. Place-based education asks students and their teachers to critically assess the problems that exist in their communities using skills offered by critical pedagogy, historical analysis, and ecofeminist insights.114 Ecopedagogy, also drawing from critical pedagogy’s emancipatory vision, seeks to draw students’ attention to the intrinsic value of all species, and reconnect teaching and learning with the need to care for the planet.115 Ecoliteracy, holistic education, and sustainability education are also related approaches, each seeking to offer students the skills and develop the attitudes of care necessary to help nurture our relationship to the natural world and create healthy communities of life. Ecofeminism, broadly understood, is influencing them all. What is especially important for our purposes here, are the ways feminist perspectives are being brought to bear within these areas of research in order to expose the roots of intersecting social and ecological violence, especially the ways that gendered violence serves as an analog of ecological degradation.

The early pioneers that galvanized ecofeminism as both a philosophy and transformative activist and educational movement decades ago are now being revisited in light of widespread social and ecological injustices at the hands of globalized patriarchal neoliberalism. As a theoretical framework, ecofeminism excels at making visible the interconnectivity of woman-Others-nature. Ecofeminism’s continued value and purpose as a guiding philosophy for activism, research and teacher education can be seen in its very definition: Feminism is a nature issue and nature is a feminist issue.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thank Agnes Krynski for her help in preparing this manuscript.

References

Adams, C. J. (1990). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York: Continuum.Find this resource:

    Adams, C. J. (1991). Ecofeminism and the eating of animals. Hypatia, 6(1), 125–145.Find this resource:

      Archer, D. (2016). The long thaw: How humans are changing the next 100,000 years of earths climate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Find this resource:

        Barrett, M. J. (2005). Making some sense of feminist poststructuralism in environmental education research and practice. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 79–93.Find this resource:

          Bell, A. C., & Russell, C. L. (2000). Beyond human, beyond words: Anthropocentrism, critical pedagogy, and the poststructuralist turn. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de Léducation, 25(3), 188.Find this resource:

            Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., . . . Zondervan, R. (2012). Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving earth system governance. Science, 335(6074), 1306–1307.Find this resource:

              Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education. Ashville, NC: Kivaki Press.Find this resource:

                Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Find this resource:

                  Cuomo, C. J. (1998). Feminism and ecological communities: An ethic of flourishing. London: Routledge.Find this resource:

                    Cuomo, C. J. (2011). Climate change, vulnerability, and responsibility. Hypatia, 26(4), 690–714.Find this resource:

                      Gray, E. D. (1981). Green paradise lost. Wellesley, MA: Roundtable Press.Find this resource:

                        Eisler, R. (1988). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future. New York: HarperOne.Find this resource:

                          Fawcett, L. (2000). Ethical imagining: Ecofeminist possibilities and environmental learning. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 134–147.Find this resource:

                            Fuss, D. (1989). Essentially speaking: Feminism, nature & difference. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                              Gaard, G. (1997). Ecofeminism and wilderness. Environmental Ethics, 19(1), 5–24.Find this resource:

                                Gaard, G. (1998). Ecofeminism and home. Iris, 37, 62.Find this resource:

                                  Gaard, G. (2011). Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism. Feminist Formations, 23(2), 26–53.Find this resource:

                                    Gaard, G. C. (Ed.). (1993). Ecofeminism: women, animals, nature. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Find this resource:

                                      Gaard, G. C., & Murphy, P. D. (Eds.). (1998). Ecofeminist literary criticism: Theory, interpretation, pedagogy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Find this resource:

                                        Goralnik, L., Dobson, T., & Nelson, M. P. (2015). Place-based care ethics: A field philosophy pedagogy. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 19, 180–196.Find this resource:

                                          Gough, A. (1999). Recognising women in environmental education pedagogy and research: Toward an ecofeminist poststructuralist perspective. Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 143–161.Find this resource:

                                            Gough, A. (2014). Researching differently: Generating a gender agenda for research in environmental education. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 375–383). New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                              Gough, A., Russell, C., & Whitehouse, H. (2017). Moving gender from margin to center in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 5–9.Find this resource:

                                                Gray, E. D. (1981). Green paradise lost. Wellesley, MA: Roundtable Press.Find this resource:

                                                  Greenwood, D., & McKenzie, M. (2009). Context, experience, and the socioecological: Inquiries into practice. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 14, 5–14.Find this resource:

                                                    Griffin, S. (1978). Woman and nature: The roaring inside her (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Find this resource:

                                                      Gruen, L. (1993). Dismantling oppression: An analysis of the connection between women and animals. In G. C. Gaard (Ed.), Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature (pp. 60–90). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Find this resource:

                                                        Gruenewald, D., & Smith, G. (Eds). (2008). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                          Haraway, D. (1991). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 183–202). New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                            Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Find this resource:

                                                              Harvester, L., & Blenkinsop, S. (2011). Environmental education and ecofeminist pedagogy: Bridging the environmental and the social. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 15, 120–134.Find this resource:

                                                                IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Core Writing Team, R. K. Pachauri & L. A. Meyer (Eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.Find this resource:

                                                                  Kahn, R. (2010). Critical pedagogy, ecoliteracy and planetary crisis: The ecopedagogy movement. New York: Peter Lang.Find this resource:

                                                                    Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.Find this resource:

                                                                      Kulnieks, A., Roronhiakewen Longboat, D., & Young, K. (Eds). (2013). Contemporary studies in environmental and indigenous pedagogies: A curricula of stories and place. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Find this resource:

                                                                        LaDuke, W. (1992). Minobimaatisiiwin: The good life. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 4(Winter), 6–71.Find this resource:

                                                                          Lawson, V. (2007). Geographies of care and responsibility. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(1), 1–11.Find this resource:

                                                                            Legler, G. (1997). Ecofeminist literary criticism. In K. Warren (Ed.), Ecofeminism: Women, culture, nature (pp. 227–238). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Find this resource:

                                                                              Li, H. (2007). Ecofeminism as a pedagogical project: Women, nature, and education. Educational Theory, 57(3), 351–368.Find this resource:

                                                                                Llora-Bidart, T. (2015). A political ecology of education in/for the anthropocene. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 6, 128–148.Find this resource:

                                                                                  Lowenstein, E., Martusewicz, R., & Voelker, L. (2010). Developing teachers’ capacity for ecojustice education and community-based learning. Part of a Special Issue: Education and the Environment, 37(4), 99–118.Find this resource:

                                                                                    Lupinacci, J. (2013). Eco-ethical environmental education: Critically and ethically examining our perceptions of being human. In A. Kulnieks, D. Longboat, & K. Young (Eds.), Contemporary studies in environmental and indigenous pedagogies: A curricula of stories and place (pp. 185–200). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Find this resource:

                                                                                      Lupinacci, J., & Happel, A. (2016). (Un)learning anthropocentrism: An ecojustice framework for teaching to resist human-supremacy in schools. In S. Rice & A. G. Rudd (Eds.), The educational significance of human and non-human animal interactions: Blurring the species line (pp. 13–30). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Find this resource:

                                                                                        MacGregor, S. (2014). Only resist: Feminist ecological citizenship and the post-politics of climate change. Hypatia, 29(3), 617–633.Find this resource:

                                                                                          Mallory, C. (2010). What is ecofeminist political philosophy? Gender, nature, and the political. Environmental Ethics, 32(3), 305–322.Find this resource:

                                                                                            Martusewicz, R. A. (2012). EcoJustice education as an ethic of care. In R. Lake (Ed.), Dear Nel: Opening the circles of care (Letters to Nel Noddings) (pp. 28–31). New York: Teachers College Press.Find this resource:

                                                                                              Martusewicz, R. A. (2013). Toward an anti-centric ecological culture: Bringing a critical eco-feminist analysis to ecojustice education. In A. Kulnieks, D. Longboat, & K. Young (Eds.), Contemporary studies in environmental and indigenous pedagogies: A curricula of stories and place (pp. 259–272). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Find this resource:

                                                                                                Martusewicz, R. A. (2016). Education for eco-ethical becoming: Reading Bateson and Deleuze on difference. In W. M. Reynolds & J. A. Webber (Eds.), Expanding Curriculum Theory: Dis/positions and Lines of Flight (2d ed., pp. 62–76). New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                                                  Martusewicz, R. A., Edmundson, J., & Lupinacci, J. (2015). EcoJustice education: Toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities (2d ed.). New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                                                    Martusewicz, R. A., & Johnson, L. (2016). EcoJustice education. In I. Van der Tuin (Ed.), MacMillan interdisciplinary handbooks: Gender, v2: Nature (pp. 57–71). New York: MacMillan.Find this resource:

                                                                                                      Mathai, W. (2003). The Green Belt Movement: Sharing the approach and the experience. New York: Lanham Books.Find this resource:

                                                                                                        Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution. San Francisco: Harper & Row.Find this resource:

                                                                                                          Merchant, C. (2006). The scientific revolution and the death of nature. Isis, 97(3), 513–533.Find this resource:

                                                                                                            Mies, M., & Shiva, V. (1993). Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books.Find this resource:

                                                                                                              Murphy, P. D. (1998). “The women are speaking”: Contemporary literature as theoretical critique. In G. C. Gaard & P. D. Murphy (Eds.), Ecofeminist literary criticism: theory, interpretation, pedagogy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                Nagel, J. (2016). Gender and climate change: Impacts, science, policy. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                  Nelson, M. K. (2008). Original instructions: Indigenous teachings for a sustainable future. Rochester, VT: Bear and Company.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                    Nhanenge, J. (2011). Ecofeminism: Towards integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development. New York: University Press of America.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                      Oakley, J. (2011). Animality and environmental education: Toward an interspecies paradigm. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 16, 8–13.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                        Piersol, L., & Timmerman, N. (2017). Reimagining environmental education within academia: Storytelling and dialogue as lived ecofeminist politics. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 10–17.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                          Pilgrim, K., & Davis, H. L. (2015). “More crucial” matters: Reclaiming “sustainability” and transcending the rhetoric of “choice” through ecofeminist pedagogy. Ethics & the Environment, 20(1), 123–139.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                            Plumwood, V. (1991). Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia, 6(1), 3–27.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                              Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                Plumwood, V. (2002). Environmental culture: The ecological crisis of reason. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                  Radford Ruether, R. (2005). Integrating ecofeminism, globalization and world religions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                    Russell, C. L., & Bell, A. C. (1996). A politicized ethic of care: Environmental education from an ecofeminist perspective. In K. Warren (Ed.), Womens voices in experiential education (pp. 172–181). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                      Sakellari, M., & Skanavis, C. (2013). Environmental behavior and gender: An emerging area of concern for environmental education research. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(2), 77–87.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                        Salleh, A. (1988). Environment: Consciousness and action. Journal of Environmental Education, 20(2), 26-31.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                          Salleh, A. (1991). “Essentialism”—and eco-feminism. Arena, 94, 167–173.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                            Salleh, A. (2003). Ecofeminism as sociology. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 14(1), 61–74.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                              Schnakenberg, G. R., Martusewicz, R. A., Edmundson, J., & Lupinacci, J. (2015). Learning racism: An ecojustice approach to racial inequality. In Martusewicz et al. (Eds.), EcoJustice Education: Toward diverse, democratic and sustainable Communities (pp. 206–253). New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                Shiva, V. (2010). Staying alive: Women, ecology, and survival in India. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Originally published in 1988.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                  Shiva, V. (2009). Development, ecology, and women. In D. Clowney & P. Mosto (Eds.), Earthcare: An anthology in environmental ethics (pp. 273–282). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                    Spannring, R. (2017). Animals in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 23(1), 63–74.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                      Spiegel, M. (1996). The dreaded comparison: Human and animal slavery (Rev. and expanded ed.). New York: Mirror Books.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                        Stanley, E. (forthcoming). Letters from love’s great room: Fiction as cultural ecological analysis and pedagogy of responsibility. To be published in R. Foster, J. Mäkelä, & R. A. Martusewicz (Eds.), Art, ecojustice, & education: International perspectives. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                          Sturgeon, N. (1997). Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender, feminist theory, and political action. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                            Turner, R. (2015). Teaching for EcoJustice: Curriculum and lessons for secondary and college classrooms. New York: Routledge.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                              Vance, L. (1993). Ecofeminism and the politics of reality. In G. C. Gaard (Ed.), Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature (pp. 118–145). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                Warren, K. J. (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environmental Ethics, 9(1), 3–20.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                  Warren, K. J. (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125–146.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                    Warren, K. J. (1993). Introduction to ecofeminism. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, & K. J. Warren (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 263–276). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                      Warren, K. J. (2000). Ecofeminist philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and why it matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                        Warren, K. J., & Cheney, J. (1991). Ecological feminism and ecosystem ecology. Hypatia, 6(1), 179–197.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                          Zelezny, L. C., Chua, P. P., & Aldrich, C. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457.Find this resource:

                                                                                                                                                                            Notes:

                                                                                                                                                                            (1.) International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014). Climate change 2014: Summary for policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer (Eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.

                                                                                                                                                                            (2.) D. Archer (2016). The long thaw: How humans are changing the next 100,000 years of earth’s climate (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

                                                                                                                                                                            (3.) F. Biermann, K. Abbott, S. Andresen, K. Bäckstrand, S. Bernstein, M. M. Betsill, . . . R. Zondervan (2012). Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving earth system governance. Science, 335(6074), 1306–1307.

                                                                                                                                                                            (4.) R. Carson (1962). Silent spring (New York: Houghton Mifflin).

                                                                                                                                                                            (5.) While most of the feminist research included in this essay originates in the global north, we have worked to include the scholarship of prominent feminist activists, scholars, and educators from Africa, India, and Latin America as well. We recognize the resulting limitations in perspective that our primary focus creates, but we hope that the overall scope of theory presented will give a sense of the diversity of issues, questions, and voices offered by ecofeminists around the world, in particular as it is influencing educational thought.

                                                                                                                                                                            (6.) V. Shiva (2010). Staying alive: Women, ecology, and development, pp. xi–xii (Brooklyn, NY: South End Press).

                                                                                                                                                                            (7.) C. Merchant (2006). The scientific revolution and the death of nature. Isis, 97(3), 513–533.

                                                                                                                                                                            (8.) N. Sturgeon (1997). Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender, feminist theory, and political action (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (9.) R. A. Martusewicz (2016). Education for eco-ethical becoming: Reading Bateson and Deleuze on difference. In W. M. Reynolds, & J. A. Webber (Eds.), Expanding curriculum theory dis/positions and lines of flight (2d ed., pp. 62–76) (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (10.) A. Gough, C. Russell, & H. Whitehouse (2017). Moving gender from margin to center in environmental education, The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 5–9.

                                                                                                                                                                            (11.) G. C. Gaard (Ed.) (1993). Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), p. 1.

                                                                                                                                                                            (12.) R. Radford Ruether (2005). Integrating ecofeminism, globalization and world religions (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), p. 94.

                                                                                                                                                                            (13.) K. J. Warren (2000). Ecofeminist philosophy: A western perspective on what it is and why it matters (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).

                                                                                                                                                                            (14.) S. Griffin (1978). Woman and nature: The roaring inside her (1st ed.) (New York: Harper & Row).

                                                                                                                                                                            (15.) R. Eisler (1988). The chalice and the blade: Our history, our future (New York: HarperOne).

                                                                                                                                                                            (16.) G. Gaard (1997). Ecofeminism and wilderness. Environmental Ethics, 19(1), 5–24, p. 8.

                                                                                                                                                                            (17.) V. Plumwood (2002). Environmental culture: The ecological crisis of reason (New York: Routledge), p. 46.

                                                                                                                                                                            (18.) C. Merchant (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology, and the scientific revolution (San Francisco: Harper & Row), p. xvi.

                                                                                                                                                                            (19.) R. A. Martusewicz, J. Edmundson, & J. Lupinacci (2015). EcoJustice education: Toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities (2d ed.) (New York: Routledge), p. 76.

                                                                                                                                                                            (20.) K. J. Warren (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environmental Ethics, 9(1), 3–20, p. 6.

                                                                                                                                                                            (21.) K. J. Warren (1998). Introduction to ecofeminism. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, & K. J. Warren (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: from animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 263–276, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

                                                                                                                                                                            (22.) K. J. Warren (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environmental Ethics, 9(1), 3–20. G. Gaard (1997). Ecofeminism and wilderness. Environmental Ethics, 19(1), 5–24.

                                                                                                                                                                            (23.) V. Plumwood (2002). Environmental culture: The ecological crisis of reason (New York: Routledge), p. 17.

                                                                                                                                                                            (24.) K. J. Warren (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism. Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125–146, p. 130.

                                                                                                                                                                            (25.) K. J. Warren (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environmental Ethics, 9(1), 3–20, p. 6.

                                                                                                                                                                            (26.) K. J. Warren (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections. Environmental Ethics, 9(1), 3–20. E. Dodson Gray (1981). Green paradise lost (Wellesley, MA: Roundtable Press).

                                                                                                                                                                            (27.) K. J. Warren (1993). Introduction to ecofeminism. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, & K. J. Warren (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: from animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 263–276). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

                                                                                                                                                                            (28.) K. J. Warren (1993/1998). Introduction to ecofeminism. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, & K. J. Warren (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: from animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 263–276). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

                                                                                                                                                                            (29.) C. J. Adams (1990). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory (New York: Continuum).

                                                                                                                                                                            (30.) M. Spiegel (1996). The dreaded comparison: Human and animal slavery (Rev. and expanded ed.) (New York: Mirror Books).

                                                                                                                                                                            (31.) G. C. Gaard (Ed.) (1993). Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).

                                                                                                                                                                            (33.) L. Harvester & S. Blenkinsop (2011). Environmental education and ecofeminist pedagogy: Bridging the environmental and the social. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 15, 120–134.

                                                                                                                                                                            (34.) L. Goralnik, T. Dobson, & M. P. Nelson (2015). Place-based care ethics: A field philosophy pedagogy. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 19, 180–196; K. Pilgrim & H. L. Davis (2015). “More crucial” matters: Reclaiming “sustainability” and transcending the rhetoric of “choice” through ecofeminist pedagogy, Ethics & the Environment, 20(1), 123–139; C. L. Russell & A. C. Bell (1996). A politicized ethic of care: Environmental education from an ecofeminist perspective. In K. Warren (Ed.), Women’s voices in experiential education (pp. 172–181) (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt).

                                                                                                                                                                            (35.) E. Lowenstein, R. Martusewicz, & L. Voelker (2010). Developing teachers’ capacity for ecojustice education and community-based learning [Part of a special issue], Education and the Environment, 37(4), 99–118.

                                                                                                                                                                            (36.) L. Piersol, & N. Timmerman (2017). Reimagining environmental education within academia: Storytelling and dialogue as lived ecofeminist politics. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 10–17, p. 15.

                                                                                                                                                                            (37.) R. Spannring (2017). Animals in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 23(1), 63–74, p. 64.

                                                                                                                                                                            (38.) L. Fawcett (2000). Ethical imagining: Ecofeminist possibilities and environmental learning, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 134–147.

                                                                                                                                                                            (39.) Fawcett, Ethical imagining, p. 146.

                                                                                                                                                                            (40.) D. Haraway (2008). When species meet (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

                                                                                                                                                                            (41.) L. Harvester & S. Blenkinsop (2011). Environmental education and ecofeminist pedagogy: Bridging the environmental and the social, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 15, 120–134.

                                                                                                                                                                            (42.) Harvester & Blenkinsop. Environmental education and ecofeminist pedagogy, p. 126.

                                                                                                                                                                            (43.) A. Salleh (2003). Ecofeminism as sociology, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 14(1), 61–74, see p. 67.

                                                                                                                                                                            (44.) V. Shiva (2010). Staying alive: Women, ecology, and survival in India (New Delhi: Kali for Women).

                                                                                                                                                                            (45.) V. Shiva (2010). Staying alive: Women, ecology, and survival in India (New Delhi: Kali for Women), pp. 1–2.

                                                                                                                                                                            (46.) V. Shiva (2009). Development, ecology, and women. In D. Clowney & P. Mosto (Eds.), Earthcare: An anthology in environmental ethics (pp. 273–282) (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), p. 273.

                                                                                                                                                                            (47.) Warren, K. J. (1993). Introduction to ecofeminism. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, & K. J. Warren (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: from animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 263–276) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

                                                                                                                                                                            (48.) K. J. Warren (1993). Introduction to ecofeminism. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, & K. J. Warren (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: from animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 263–276) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

                                                                                                                                                                            (49.) J. Nagel (2016). Gender and climate change: Impacts, science, policy (New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group).

                                                                                                                                                                            (50.) J. Nhanenge (2011). Ecofeminism: Towards integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development (Lanham, MD: University Press of America), p. 126.

                                                                                                                                                                            (51.) N. Sturgeon (1997). Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender, feminist theory and political action (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (52.) N. Sturgeon (1997). Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender, feminist theory, and political action (New York: Routledge), p. 136.

                                                                                                                                                                            (53.) W. Mathai (2003). The Green Belt Movement: Sharing the approach and the experience (New York: Lanham Books).

                                                                                                                                                                            (54.) R. Radford Ruether (2005). Integrating ecofeminism, globalization and world religions (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), p. 103.

                                                                                                                                                                            (55.) R. Radford Ruether (2005). Integrating ecofeminism, globalization and world religions (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), p. 115.

                                                                                                                                                                            (56.) L. Gruen (1993). Dismantling oppression: An analysis of the connection between women and animals. In G. C. Gaard (Ed.), Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature (pp. 60–90) (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), p. 61.

                                                                                                                                                                            (57.) C. J. Adams (1991). Ecofeminism and the eating of animals. Hypatia, 6(1), 125–145, see p. 136.

                                                                                                                                                                            (58.) G. R. Schnakenberg, R. A. Martusewicz, J. Edmundson, & J. Lupinacci (2015). Learning racism: An ecojustice approach to racial inequality. In Martusewicz et al. (Eds.), EcoJustice education: Toward diverse, democratic and sustainable communities, 206–253.

                                                                                                                                                                            (59.) See for example, R. A. Martusewicz (2013). Toward an anti-centric ecological culture: Bringing a critical eco-feminist analysis to ecojustice education. In A. Kulnieks, D. Longboat, & K. Young (Eds.), Contemporary studies in environmental and indigenous pedagogies: A curricula of stories and place (pp. 259–272) (Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers); R. A. Martusewicz, J. Edmundson, & J. Lupinacci (2015). EcoJustice education: Toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities (2d ed.) (New York: Routledge); J. Lupinacci (2013). Eco-ethical environmental education: Critically and ethically examining our perceptions of being human. In A. Kulnieks, D. Longboat, & K. Young (Eds.), Contemporary studies in environmental and indigenous pedagogies: A curricula of stories and place (pp. 185–200) (Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers); J. Lupinacci, & A. Happel (2016). (Un)learning anthropocentrism: An ecojustice framework for teaching to resist human-supremacy in schools. In S. Rice & A. G. Rudd (Eds.) The educational significance of human and non-human animal interactions: Blurring the species line (pp. 13–30) (New York: Palgrave MacMillan); and L. Harvester & S. Blenkinsop (2011). Environmental education and ecofeminist pedagogy: Bridging the environmental and the social, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 15, 120–134.

                                                                                                                                                                            (60.) G. Legler (1997). Ecofeminist literary criticism. In K. Warren (Ed.), Ecofeminism: Women, culture, nature (pp. 227–238) (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press), p. 229.

                                                                                                                                                                            (61.) L. Vance (1993). Ecofeminism and the politics of reality. In G. C. Gaard (Ed.), Ecofeminism: Women, animals, nature (pp. 118–145) (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), p. 124.

                                                                                                                                                                            (62.) P. D. Murphy (1998). “The women are speaking”: Contemporary literature as theoretical critique. In G. C. Gaard & P. D. Murphy (Eds.), Ecofeminist literary criticism: theory, interpretation, pedagogy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, p. 46.

                                                                                                                                                                            (63.) L. Piersol, & N. Timmerman (2017). Reimagining environmental education within academia: Storytelling and dialogue as lived ecofeminist politics. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 10–17, see p. 15.

                                                                                                                                                                            (64.) L. Fawcett (2000). Ethical imagining: Ecofeminist possibilities and environmental learning, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 134–147, see p. 134.

                                                                                                                                                                            (65.) L. Piersol, & N. Timmerman (2017). Reimagining environmental education within academia: Storytelling and dialogue as lived ecofeminist politics. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 10–17, see p. 15.

                                                                                                                                                                            (66.) R. Turner (2015). Teaching for EcoJustice: Curriculum and lessons for secondary and college classrooms (New York: Routledge), p. 1.

                                                                                                                                                                            (67.) E. Stanley (forthcoming). Letters from love’s great room: Fiction as cultural ecological analysis and pedagogy of responsibility. To be published in R. Foster, J. Mäkelä, R. A. Martusewicz (Eds.), Art, EcoJustice, & education: International perspectives (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (68.) J. Nhanenge (2011). Ecofeminism: Towards integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development (Lanham, MA: University Press of America), p. 146.

                                                                                                                                                                            (69.) V. Plumwood (2002). Environmental culture: the ecological crisis of reason (London: Routledge), p. 219.

                                                                                                                                                                            (70.) J. Nhanenge (2011). Ecofeminism: Towards integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development (Lanham, MA: University Press of America), 147–148.

                                                                                                                                                                            (71.) R. Radford Ruether (2005). Integrating ecofeminism, globalization and world religions (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), p. 95.

                                                                                                                                                                            (72.) R. Radford Ruether (2005). Integrating ecofeminism, globalization and world religions (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), p. 95.

                                                                                                                                                                            (73.) R. Radford Ruether (2005). Integrating ecofeminism, globalization and world religions (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers), p. 101.

                                                                                                                                                                            (74.) See for example, G. Cajete (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education (Ashville, NC: Kivaki Press); and M. K. Nelson (2008). Original instructions: Indigenous teachings for a sustainable future (Rochester, VT: Bear and Company).

                                                                                                                                                                            (75.) W. LaDuke (1992). Minobimaatisiiwin: The good life. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 4(Winter), 6–71, see p. 71.

                                                                                                                                                                            (76.) See K. J. Warren (1993). Introduction to ecofeminism. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, & K. J. Warren (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: from animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 263–276) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall); and V. Plumwood (2002). Environmental culture: The ecological crisis of reason (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (77.) A. Gough (2014). Researching differently: Generating a gender agenda for research in environmental education. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 375–383) (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (78.) K. J. Warren (1987). Feminism and ecology: Making connections, Environmental Ethics, 9(1), 3–20.

                                                                                                                                                                            (79.) M. Sakellari & C. Skanavis (2013). Environmental behavior and gender: An emerging area of concern for environmental education research. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(2), 77–87; A. Gough (1999). Recognising women in environmental education pedagogy and research: Toward an ecofeminist poststructuralist perspective, Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 143–161.

                                                                                                                                                                            (80.) A. Gough (2014). Researching differently: Generating a gender agenda for research in environmental education. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 375–383) (New York: Routledge); L. Fawcett (2000). Ethical imagining: Ecofeminist possibilities and environmental learning, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 134–147; and A. Gough (1999). Recognising women in environmental education pedagogy and research: Toward an ecofeminist poststructuralist perspective, Environmental Education Research, 5(2), 143–161.

                                                                                                                                                                            (81.) V. Plumwood (1991). Nature, self, and gender: Feminism, environmental philosophy, and the critique of rationalism. Hypatia, 6(1), 3–27.

                                                                                                                                                                            (82.) See D. Haraway (1991). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature (pp. 183–202) (New York: Routledge); and L. Fawcett (2000). Ethical imagining: Ecofeminist possibilities and environmental learning, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 134–147.

                                                                                                                                                                            (83.) R. A. Martusewicz, J. Edmundson, & J. Lupinacci (2015). EcoJustice education: Toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities (2d ed.) (New York: Routledge), p. 63.

                                                                                                                                                                            (84.) J. Nhanenge (2011). Ecofeminism: Towards integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development (Lanham, MD: University Press of America), p. 142.

                                                                                                                                                                            (85.) C. Mallory (2010). What is ecofeminist political philosophy? Gender, nature, and the political. Environmental Ethics, 32(3), 305–322, see p. 308.

                                                                                                                                                                            (86.) S. MacGrego (2014). Only resist: Feminist ecological citizenship and the post-politics of climate change. Hypatia, 29(3), 617–633, 630.

                                                                                                                                                                            (87.) H. Li (2007). Ecofeminism as a pedagogical project: Women, nature, and education. Educational Theory, 57(3), 351–368, see p. 361.

                                                                                                                                                                            (88.) N. Sturgeon (1997). Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender, feminist theory, and political action (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (89.) As cited in H. Li (2007). Ecofeminism as a pedagogical project: Women, nature, and education, Educational Theory, 57(3), 351–368, see p. 362.

                                                                                                                                                                            (90.) C. J. Cuomo (2011). Climate change, vulnerability, and responsibility. Hypatia, 26(4), 690–714.

                                                                                                                                                                            (91.) A. Gough, C. Russell, & H. Whitehouse (2017). Moving gender from margin to center in environmental education, Journal of Environmental Education, 48(1), 5–9; H. Li (2007). Ecofeminism as a pedagogical project: Women, nature, and education, Educational Theory, 57(3), 351–368.

                                                                                                                                                                            (92.) See for example, M. Sakellari & C. Skanavis (2013). Environmental behavior and gender: An emerging area of concern for environmental education research, Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(2), 77–87; L. C. Zelezny, P. P. Chua, & C. Aldrich (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism, Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457; and A. Kollmuss & J. Agyeman (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?, Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

                                                                                                                                                                            (93.) M. Sakellari & C. Skanavis (2013). Environmental behavior and gender: An emerging area of concern for environmental education research. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 12(2), 77–87, see p. 84.

                                                                                                                                                                            (94.) T. Llora-Bidart (2015). A political ecology of education in/for the Anthropocene, Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 6, 128–148, see p. 128.

                                                                                                                                                                            (95.) C. J. Cuomo (1998). Feminism and ecological communities: An ethic of flourishing (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (96.) V. Plumwood (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (97.) C. J. Cuomo (1998). Feminism and ecological communities: An ethic of flourishing (New York: Routledge), p. 41.

                                                                                                                                                                            (98.) K. J. Warren & J. Cheney (1991). Ecological feminism and ecosystem ecology. Hypatia, 6(1), 179–197, see p. 188.

                                                                                                                                                                            (99.) K. J. Warren & J. Cheney (1991). Ecological feminism and ecosystem ecology. Hypatia, 6(1), 179–197, see p. 188.

                                                                                                                                                                            (100.) C. J. Cuomo (1998). Feminism and ecological communities: An ethic of flourishing (New York: Routledge), p. 62.

                                                                                                                                                                            (101.) C. J. Cuomo (1998). Feminism and ecological communities: An ethic of flourishing (New York: Routledge), p. 63.

                                                                                                                                                                            (102.) J. Nhanenge (2011). Ecofeminism: Towards integrating the concerns of women, poor people, and nature into development (Lanham, MD: University Press of America).

                                                                                                                                                                            (103.) V. Lawson (2007). Geographies of care and responsibility, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(1), 1–11, see p. 3.

                                                                                                                                                                            (104.) See for example M. Mies & V. Shiva (1993). Ecofeminism (London: Zed Books); R. A. Martusewicz (2013). Toward an anti-centric ecological culture: Bringing a critical eco-feminist analysis to ecojustice education. In A. Kulnieks, D. Longboat, & K. Young (Eds.), Contemporary studies in environmental and indigenous pedagogies: A curricula of stories and place (pp. 259–272). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers; R. A. Martusewicz & L. Johnson (2016). EcoJustice education. In Iris Van der Tuin (Ed.), MacMillan interdisciplinary handbooks: Gender, v2: Nature (pp. 57–71) (New York: MacMillan).

                                                                                                                                                                            (105.) R. A. Martusewicz (2013). Toward an anti-centric ecological culture: Bringing a critical eco-feminist analysis to ecojustice education. In A. Kulnieks, D. Longboat, & K. Young (Eds.), Contemporary studies in environmental and indigenous pedagogies: A curricula of stories and place (pp. 259–272). (Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers), p. 270.

                                                                                                                                                                            (106.) R. A. Martusewicz (2012). EcoJustice education as an ethic of care. In R. Lake (Ed.), Dear Nel: Opening the circles of care (Letters to Nel Noddings) (pp. 28–31) (New York: Teachers College Press), see pp. 30–31.

                                                                                                                                                                            (107.) K. J. Warren (1990). The power and the promise of ecological feminism, Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125–146, see p. 143.

                                                                                                                                                                            (108.) K. J. Warren (1993). Introduction to ecofeminism. In M. E. Zimmerman, J. B. Callicott, G. Sessions, & K. J. Warren (Eds.), Environmental philosophy: From animal rights to radical ecology (pp. 263–276) (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall), see p. 254.

                                                                                                                                                                            (109.) A. Salleh (1991). “Essentialism”—and eco-feminism, Arena, 94, 167–173, see p. 168.

                                                                                                                                                                            (110.) G. Gaard (2011). Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism, Feminist Formations, 23(2), 26–53, see p. 36.

                                                                                                                                                                            (111.) N. Sturgeon (1997). Ecofeminist natures: Race, gender, feminist theory, and political action (New York: Routledge), p. 16; and D. Fuss (1989). Essentially speaking: Feminism, nature & difference (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (112.) G. Gaard (2011). Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism, Feminist Formations, 23(2), 26–53, see p. 31.

                                                                                                                                                                            (113.) R. A. Martusewicz, J. Edmundson, & J. Lupinacci (2015). EcoJustice education: Toward diverse, democratic, and sustainable communities (2d ed.) (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (114.) D. Gruenewald & G. Smith (Eds) (2008). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity (New York: Routledge).

                                                                                                                                                                            (115.) R. Kahn (2010). Critical pedagogy, ecoliteracy and planetary crisis: The ecopedagogy movement (New York: Peter Lang).