ECODEPENDENCE
Irene Ortiz and Adrián Santamaría
If we had to find a word to indicate denial of the ecodependent condition of human beings (in particular) and our societies (in general), one of the best choices would be “denialism”, as proposed by Riechmann (2021). According to his taxonomy, we can state that at present there are at least three different levels for not assuming that nature and society are intimately connected. Following on from the negationist level zero (the Holocaust), we arrive at level one, consisting in the denial of scientific evidence that points to a climatic crisis, in a restricted sense (climate denial). The next level is more radical and inclusive (level two): it “denies that we are corporeal, finite and vulnerable beings, who have set in motion destructive processes on a planetary scale, and that we have transgressed the planet’s biophysical boundaries” (Riechmann, 2021, pp. 98-99). Lastly, a third level would accept the diagnosis outlined above, but without accepting that the only viable solutions are those found outside of the capitalist system and developmentalism. Negationism at the third level, therefore, embraces the idea that it would be possible to make a Promethean headlong rush forward, thus endorsing a high-tech, high-energy future (transhumanism, as a political and intellectual movement, is the maximum expression of this attitude).
Embracing ecodependence, for its part, also varies greatly and comprises a plurality of stances. An initial form of determining human beings’ ecodependence is to state that they cannot be regarded as separate entities to the environment in which they exist. Human life, besides depending on the care provided by other human beings, depends on the environment in which it occurs, and therefore the perception of culture prevailing over nature -in which the latter is an object subordinated to human beings’ demands, as in the classical social contract theories- would, at the very least, require a thorough review. Other authors, however, pursue this point further on different paths. Some, referring to the “radical dependence of all that exists”, affirm that it is not even desirable to uphold a distinction such as human beings vs. environment. Ecodependence, on an ontological level, is so radical that it is impossible to place an entity such as humans on a different hierarchical level to their environment, or to isolate them from the rest of nature (which, as well as surrounding them, flows through them). A graphic example of this is our radical dependence on bacteria: the microbiome we are made of shows us that ecodependence is an absolutely “intimate” reality, and that it is better to think of ourselves as “human-bacteria hybrids” (Riechmann, 2016, p. 27), as demonstrated by Lynn Margulis (Margulis & Sagan, 2003; Sagan, 2014). This fact, at first view a banality at the micro level, can be extrapolated to the macro level, that is to say, to the apparently “external” level: namely, to the metabolic relationship between the sociosphere, the technosphere and the biosphere. The debate around these questions is midway between ontology and moral philosophy, seeking to distinguish among anthropocentric, biocentric and ecocentric positions.
An ecodependent approach, broadly speaking, may be condensed as the notion that “nothing exists if there is no nature to sustain it” (Hererro, 2022). However, the means by which we arrive at this diagnosis, and the ways we address situations of ecodependence, are manifold, as mentioned above, and include gender issues. In cases of ecofeminism, where the notion of ecodependence is a determinant factor, a number of different stances have added interest to the debate.
On the one hand, from an essentialist viewpoint, traits generally considered as “feminine” are attributed to Nature, particularly those relating to reproduction and the duty to care. The essentialist perspective recognises the ecodependent character of reality and ascribes to women a privileged role with regard to the Earth. From this slant, women’s role in reproduction and the duty to care (also fundamental in interdependence) becomes key to explaining the bond between women and nature. Motherhood allows women to gain intimate and intuitive knowledge of nature’s secrets and mysteries (Sagols, 2014, p. 117). In this context, the category “care” shapes the ethical position that allows us to cross the threshold of care within the family to a global stance whose core is ecodependence (and the due protection of the Earth as part of this relationship). With regard to ecodependence and caring for the Earth, women take on a privileged role in which they cast bridges between reason and intuition, besides developing a sense of the sacred (Puleo, 2011, p. 40).
On the other hand, we may speak of the ecodependence vindicated within ecofeminism from a constructive-cultural perspective, which, in some cases, may seem reminiscent of the Age of Enlightenment, but in others would end up tying in with the posthumanities. Over and above these differences we may state that, rather than establishing bonds between women and nature through a shared essence, this perspective asserts that men and women are equally united with and dependent on nature (Puleo, 2011, p. 45). Here, the link between women and care responds to a historical and contextual question, not to the revelation of a natural essence. Rather than offering a universal view of women, this type of ecofeminism has led to the assertion of more inter-sectional positions. This is the case of Vandana Shiva, who has introduced factors such as colonialism, class or race in relations of ecodependence (Mies & Shiva, 1997). Regardless of whether the stress lies on the patriarchy, as claimed by Karen J. Warren in her Eco-ethics (1997, 2000), or in colonial relations, as defended in Shiva and Val Plumwood (1993, 2001; Sagols, 2014), central to this perspective is weakening antagonism between men and women, in essentialist terms, placing it within its historical-cultural context.
Thus, a political proposal that embraces ecodependence and addresses the latter taking gender awareness into account would place at its centre the concept of life, not restricting this to exclusively human terms. Such a political proposal would be envisaged not only as the reproduction of biological life at the service of the reproductive system, but also as a positive development of a good life. To intramural considerations that, at best, would account for the radical interdependence of all human beings within a city, we must add those that are extramural (Riechmann, 2016): or, stated differently, those concerning the metabolic relationship between society and nature, without which the former cannot subsist. Humans, therefore, in addition to being interdependent, are, at the same time, “members of a biotic team” (Riechmann, 2016, p. 22).
Bibliography:
Margulis, L. & Sagan, D. (2003). Captando genomas. Una teoría sobre el origen de las especies. Kairós.
Mies, M. & Shiva, V. (1997). Ecofeminismo. Teoría, práctica y perspectivas. Icaria.
Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203006757
Plumwood, V. (2002). Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203996430
Puleo, A. (2011). Ecofeminismo para otro mundo posible. Cátedra.
Riechmann, J. (2021). 1971-1972-1973. La fallida «revolución vernadskiana» (y bioeconómica) y nuestro ingreso en el delirio epistemológico, PAPELES de relaciones ecosociales y cambio global, 155, 85-101.
Riechmann, J. (2016). Ética extramuros. UAM Ediciones.
Sagan, D. (Ed.). (2014). Lynn Margulis. Vida y legado de una científica rebelde. Tusquets.
Sagols, E. (2014). El ecofeminismo y su expresión en la filosofía de Karen Warren. Una perspectiva ética. ELSEVIER, 49, 116-124, 10.1016/S0188-9478(16)30006-8
Warren, K. J. (1997). Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature. Indiana University Press.
Warren, K. J. (2000). Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It is and Why It Matters. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.