Ecofeminism

Clara Esteve-Jordà 

The relationship between ‘gender’ and ‘nature’ refers to how gender inequalities shape the ways in which ecosystems are perceived, used, managed and defended. The study of this relationship has been developed from various theoretical currents that have challenged the modern separation between society and nature. In this regard, ecofeminist theories and movements have been particularly influential, demonstrating how the subordination of women and environmental degradation share historical roots. Ecofeminisms have emerged in diverse contexts, both rural and urban, and in different regions of the world. 

The term ‘ecofeminism’ was coined by Françoise d’Eaubonne in 1974 in her book Le féminisme ou la mort, and became established during the 1980s. Some essentialist or biologistic ecofeminist currents have attributed this to a supposed ‘natural’ closeness between women and the environment, whether due to their reproductive capacity, their maternal role or their connection to caregiving. Nevertheless, contemporary feminist political ecology has pointed out that this relationship is not neutral: it is shaped by historical systems of domination such as patriarchy, colonialism and capitalism, which assign differentiated gender roles. From this constructivist perspective, the link between ‘gender’ and ‘nature’ is understood as the result of social and political processes. This approach challenges the supposed universality of environmental experiences and calls into question certain models of hegemonic masculinity linked to discourses of domination, technological control and denial of the ecological crisis (see Mechanicism, Nature or Technology). It also emphasises the need to incorporate gender analysis into any reflection on sustainability and ecological justice. 

Since the late 20th century, various authors have analysed how scientific modernity transformed nature into an object available for exploitation, in parallel with the devaluation of care work (Merchant, 1980). From ecofeminist and decolonial perspectives, it has been argued that extractivist development models have eroded both ecosystems and the knowledge and practices upheld by women (Mies & Shiva, 1997; Segato, 2016). These reflections have been fundamental in highlighting that patriarchal violence and extractivist violence share the same colonial matrix, in which both feminised bodies and territories are conceived as spaces available for appropriation, forming part of the same historical framework of domination.  

Feminist epistemologies have provided crucial tools for analysing how knowledge about nature is produced. Haraway’s notion of ‘situated knowledges’ (1988) challenges the idea of a neutral and universal science, emphasising that all knowledge production is linked to contexts, bodies and power relations. This perspective allows for an analysis of how science has perpetuated gender biases and rendered local and community knowledge invisible, much of which is upheld by women. Furthermore, the need to include historically excluded voices has been highlighted, with a view to fostering a more comprehensive and democratic understanding. For its part, feminist geography has shown that environmental risks, access to water and exposure to disasters are not neutral, but are shaped by power relations that determine who accesses resources, who bears the risks and who makes the decisions (Sultana, 2014; Rocheleau et al., 1996).  

The gender division of labour has historically placed women in a daily relationship with natural resources. In many regions of the Global South, women are responsible for collecting water and firewood, maintaining vegetable gardens and preserving seeds (Agarwal, 1992). This closeness would not stem from a natural affinity, but from social structures that assign care and subsistence tasks to women. In urban contexts, recent research shows that women play a prominent role in consumption decisions and in everyday sustainability initiatives, such as responsible eating or urban agriculture. However, this daily responsibility does not translate into decision-making power. Ecofeminist approaches have shown that capitalist economies depend on this care work, which is predominantly female, and on the exploitation of ecosystems (Herrero, 2013). Some proposals from critical ecofeminism advocate an ethic of care compatible with autonomy, equality and rights (Puleo, 2011). 

Moreover, it is important to note that ecological crises affect women and men differently. Women face greater risks due to inequalities in access to economic resources, information, mobility and rights. The literature on climate vulnerability has shown how women in regions affected by droughts or floods bear additional workloads and face greater risks of food insecurity (Arora Johnson, 2011). Comparative studies indicate that female mortality rates are higher during hurricanes or tsunamis due to social constraints and inequalities in access to emergency resources. Furthermore, research in environmental health indicates that women are more exposed to domestic and occupational toxins, with specific effects on reproductive health (Valls-Llobet, 2018). In addition, women environmental defenders suffer specific forms of violence, including sexual violence, as a mechanism of intimidation.  

Feminist political ecology understands resource governance as a sphere shaped by power relations that determine participation, decision-making and the distribution of benefits. Historically, women have had less access to land ownership, credit and technology, which has limited their ability to influence resource management. Globally, only a minority of land is owned by women, and when it is, it tends to consist of smaller plots with less legal security. The distinction between ownership, access and control (Ribot and Peluso, 2003) is fundamental to analysing these inequalities: many women can access resources without having formal rights to decide on them, sell them or inherit them. This situation increases their vulnerability, particularly in crisis contexts. Individual land tenure models have been promoted as a means of empowerment, although their effects have been uneven. In some contexts, forms of joint or community tenure that explicitly recognise women’s rights can offer more equitable and sustainable outcomes (see Land tenure). 

Across the world, women have played a leading role in movements to defend land and the commons, bringing together practices of sustainability, social justice and community care. The Chipko movement in India, extensively studied by Shiva, is a prime example of non-violent resistance against deforestation. Another classic example is the Green Belt Movement in Kenya, led by Wangari Maathai, which combined reforestation, women’s rights and participatory democracy. In Latin America, to name just one case, the women of the movement to defend the Atrato River in Colombia have organised territorial and community struggles that combine environmental justice, collective rights and the protection of feminised bodies against extractivist violence. In urban contexts, initiatives such as community gardens and kitchens or responsible consumption networks demonstrate how women are driving everyday sustainability practices. These experiences constitute forms of alternative governance that challenge extractivist models and open up the possibility of fairer relationships between communities and ecosystems. 

Gender-sensitive ecological justice recognises that the environmental crisis is inextricably linked to social inequalities. Integrating gender into climate policies is therefore essential to their effectiveness and legitimacy. This approach draws on debates concerning distributive, procedural and epistemic justice. From the perspective of distributive justice, the need to ensure equitable access to resources and to prevent environmental costs from falling disproportionately on women is emphasised. From the perspective of procedural justice, the importance of women’s effective participation in environmental decision-making is highlighted. And from the perspective of epistemic justice, there is a call for the recognition of local, indigenous and community knowledge, much of which is upheld by women, as valid knowledge for environmental management.  

These approaches engage with decolonial critiques, which have highlighted how the ecological crisis is linked to historical processes of dispossession and violence. Many contemporary authors argue that climate justice must incorporate a perspective that recognises the continuity between colonialism, extractivism and environmental degradation. In this sense, gender-sensitive ecological justice seeks not only to correct existing inequalities, but also to transform the structures that produce them, proposing ways of life that harmonise social justice and ecological resilience. At the same time, it recognises the agency of women and other feminised subjects, whose practices of resistance, care and territorial defence constitute active ways of building fairer ecological futures. Taken together, the relationship between gender and nature constitutes a key dimension for understanding and addressing the contemporary ecological crisis. 

Bibliography:  

Agarwal, B. (1992). The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India, Feminist Studies, 18(1), 119–158. 

Arora-Jonsson, S. (2011). Virtue and vulnerability: Discourses on women, gender and climate change, Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 744-751. 

Buckingham, S. (2020). Gender and environment (2.ª ed.). Routledge. 

Gaard, G. (2015). Ecofeminism and climate change, Women’s Studies International Forum, 49, 20–33. 

Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599. 

Harcourt, W. & Nelson, I. L. (Eds.). (2015). Practicing feminist political ecologies: Moving beyond the “green economy”. Zed Books. 

Herrero, Y. (2013). Miradas ecofeministas para transitar a un mundo justo y sostenible. Revista de Economía Crítica, nº16. 

Mies, M. & Shiva, V. (1997). Ecofeminismo. Teoría, Crítica y Perspectivas. Icaria.  

MacGregor, S. (2009). A Stranger Silence Still: The Need for Feminist Social Research on Climate Change, The Sociological Review, 57: 124-140.  

Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. HarperOne. 

Puleo, A. H. (2011). Ecofeminismo para otro mundo posible. Cátedra. 

Ribot, J. & Peluso, N. L. (2003). A theory of access. Rural Sociology, 68(2), 153–181.  

Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B. & Wangari, E. (Eds.). (1996). Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experiences. Routledge. 

Segato, R. L. (2016). La guerra contra las mujeres. Traficantes de Sueños. 

Sultana, F. (2014). Gendering climate change: Geographical insights. The Professional Geographer, 66(3), 372–381. 

Terry, G. (2009). No climate justice without gender justice: An overview of the issues. Gender & Development, 17(1), 5–18. 

Valls-Llobet, C. (2018). Medio ambiente y salud. Mujeres y hombres en un mundo de nuevos riesgos. Cátedra.