What do you think?
Rate this book
Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics
Biehl examines the contradictions of ecofeminism and argues that social ecology, and alternate framework, offers a more liberating program for men and women, as well as for our beleagured biosphere.
181 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1991
1 person is currently reading
112 people want to read
About the author
Janet Biehl
28 books79 followersMy first graphic memoir, or book-length comic, is Their Blood Got Mixed: Revolutionary Rojava and the War Against ISIS, published by PM Press in 2022.
My translations (German to English) of two volumes of the memoirs of Sakine Cansiz were published in 2018 and 2020 by Pluto Press.
My translation (German to English) of Revolution Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation, in Northern Syria by Knapp, Flach, and Ayboga, was published by Pluto Press in October 2016.
My book Ecology or Catastrophe: The Life of Murray Bookchin, was published by Oxford University Press in October 2015.
My translations (German to English) of two volumes of the memoirs of Sakine Cansiz were published in 2018 and 2020 by Pluto Press.
My translation (German to English) of Revolution Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation, in Northern Syria by Knapp, Flach, and Ayboga, was published by Pluto Press in October 2016.
My book Ecology or Catastrophe: The Life of Murray Bookchin, was published by Oxford University Press in October 2015.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 18, 2022
Not a huge fan. Biehl criticizes ecofeminism as if it were a cohesive philosophy with consistent principles. Actually, it mirrors feminism in that there are different branches of ecofeminism according to one’s philosophy. For example, the biological essentialism she critiques is a component of only certain ecofeminist thought wherein women’s natural biological instincts for nurturing are seen as a strength for women overall. Alternatively, materialist feminists do not base their analysis on biological essentialism, or on nurturing or “female” social traits as a biological given. Rather, materialist ecofeminists study how women interact with the world in a special and a *classed* way based on their position as women as a class in society. In this way, materialist ecofeminists base their analysis on women’s role as a social construction of this historical period, and their historical, current, and potential role in a revolutionary ecological feminist path forward.
January 8, 2011
A thoughtful and well-crafted critique of the contradictions within ecofeminism. One of the things that Biehl does that stuck with me was her deconstruction of essentialist positions of women as "nurturers" "mothers" and "natural caretakers" while critiquing the appropriation of neolithic cultural practices and history for the use of "new-age" consumer-based lifestyles and self-identifications in the contemporary period, which she points out, is socially regressive. I would recommend this book.
July 12, 2024
A CRITIQUE OF ECOFEMINSM FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SOCIAL ECOLOGY
Janet Biehl (b. 1953) is a writer associated with social ecology and with Murray Bookchin; she has also written/cowritten/edited the books 'The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism,' 'Mumford Gutkind Bookchin: The Emergence of Eco-Decentralism,' and 'Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience,' etc.
She wrote in the Introduction to this 1991 book, "My main purpose in writing this book has been to defend the best ideals of feminism from a disquieting tendency that has arisen from within its midst---ecofeminism. This effort is one that I have found very painful to perform. There was once a time when it seemed to me---as it did to other women---that feminism and ecology stood to mutually enrich each other. It had been my earnest hope that ecofeminism would draw upon the best of social theory and meld it with radical concepts in ecology... But recent ecofeminist literature does not fulfill this promise at all... It largely ignores or rejects legacies of democracy, of reason, and of the project of scientifically understanding much of the natural world as part of a radical liberatory movement... it has thus become an ideology that... is regressive for most thinking women."
She argues that "it is not at all clear that for a woman to be a feminist and a radical ecologist of any kind, she must also be an ecofeminist." (Pg. 4) She criticizes ecofeminism's "highly confused cosmology," which includes magic, goddesses, witchcraft, irrationalities, Neolithic atavisms, and mysticism into a "highly disparate body of hazy, poorly formulated notions, metaphors, and irrational analogies." (Pg. 6)
She suggests that ecofeminists "ahistorically rhapsodize" prehistoric cultures. (Pg. 23) She further asserts that "although ecofeminists would like us to believe that there is a goddess immanent in nature, there is not, nor any deity anywhere else." (Pg. 93)
She concludes by asking whether thinking women will "defame the most generous traditions of democracy as 'male' or 'patriarchal,' and ultimately degrade whatever progress humanity as a whole has attained...? Or will they pursue a more generous approach by joining with others---men no less than women---in a common project of liberation and ecological restoration?" (Pg. 157)
Biehl's book is challenging and thought-provoking, whether one agrees with all of her points or not, and will be of interest to students of ecofeminism, social ecology/Bookchin, or environmentalism.
Janet Biehl (b. 1953) is a writer associated with social ecology and with Murray Bookchin; she has also written/cowritten/edited the books 'The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism,' 'Mumford Gutkind Bookchin: The Emergence of Eco-Decentralism,' and 'Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience,' etc.
She wrote in the Introduction to this 1991 book, "My main purpose in writing this book has been to defend the best ideals of feminism from a disquieting tendency that has arisen from within its midst---ecofeminism. This effort is one that I have found very painful to perform. There was once a time when it seemed to me---as it did to other women---that feminism and ecology stood to mutually enrich each other. It had been my earnest hope that ecofeminism would draw upon the best of social theory and meld it with radical concepts in ecology... But recent ecofeminist literature does not fulfill this promise at all... It largely ignores or rejects legacies of democracy, of reason, and of the project of scientifically understanding much of the natural world as part of a radical liberatory movement... it has thus become an ideology that... is regressive for most thinking women."
She argues that "it is not at all clear that for a woman to be a feminist and a radical ecologist of any kind, she must also be an ecofeminist." (Pg. 4) She criticizes ecofeminism's "highly confused cosmology," which includes magic, goddesses, witchcraft, irrationalities, Neolithic atavisms, and mysticism into a "highly disparate body of hazy, poorly formulated notions, metaphors, and irrational analogies." (Pg. 6)
She suggests that ecofeminists "ahistorically rhapsodize" prehistoric cultures. (Pg. 23) She further asserts that "although ecofeminists would like us to believe that there is a goddess immanent in nature, there is not, nor any deity anywhere else." (Pg. 93)
She concludes by asking whether thinking women will "defame the most generous traditions of democracy as 'male' or 'patriarchal,' and ultimately degrade whatever progress humanity as a whole has attained...? Or will they pursue a more generous approach by joining with others---men no less than women---in a common project of liberation and ecological restoration?" (Pg. 157)
Biehl's book is challenging and thought-provoking, whether one agrees with all of her points or not, and will be of interest to students of ecofeminism, social ecology/Bookchin, or environmentalism.
July 15, 2023
Pretty good ideas, but I've heard pretty much all of them before from other social ecology texts, so for me this book was boring as hell to read, especially in the second half. Other than that, the polemics in this book are aimed at a strain of thought (ecofeminism) that is pretty much dead in 2023, so there's little reason to read this.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews