Ecofeminism and Deep Ecology - a Personal Response

Beginning of article

Thank you for allowing me to respond to Jennifer Sells' article "An Eco-Feminist Critique of Deep Ecology" (CD, Vol. 23, No. 6).

I am pleased that she sees the similarities and common ground between her version of ecofeminism and the principles of the deep, long range ecology movement. I do have several comments however.

I remained perplexed by some of her statements and statements by others who call themselves ecofeminists. I have been taught that postmodern, feminist approach to philosophy and politics and value differences is to engage in negotiation. Try to find common ground. Keep the dialogue open. Be inclusive. That is the approach that I, Arne Naess, Alan Drengson and many of the other writers on deep ecology have taken.

Jennifer Sells says that she wants to keep distinctions between ecofeminism and deep ecology clear so that we can learn from each other. I strongly agree, however, some of the differences she states I don't see as differences. I see strong similarities and parallels between ecofeminists and supporters of deep ecology.

I also find some of her comments to be lacking in justification.

She says that spokespeople of deep ecology seek a comprehensive philosophical system. In my reading of Arne Naess, George Sessions and other predominant philosophers writing on deep ecology, I see no attempt to state a comprehensive philosophical system. I see, rather an emphasis on ecological consciousness, on exploring ecological self as a prerequisite for developing an environmental ethic. When we have empathy and love for the 'distant other' as part of ourselves, then we are mindful. If we have a caring attitude, then an ethic of healing emerges. We act not out of a sense of imposed obligation but from a deep sense of joy and identification. An ecological conscience emerges from ecological consciousness.

When Sells says "...for ecofeminists, the nature which must be identified with is not only that which …